Knowles v. Schaeffer

• Decision Date: 16 February 2010
• Citation: 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 01457,893 N.Y.S.2d 880,70 A.D.3d 897
• Parties: Anna E. KNOWLES, etc., appellant,v.Bruce SCHAEFFER, etc., et al., defendants,Deborah Ross, etc., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

70 A.D.3d 897

893 N.Y.S.2d 880

2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 01457

Anna E. KNOWLES, etc., appellant,

v.Bruce SCHAEFFER, etc., et al., defendants,Deborah Ross, etc., respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 16, 2010.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREFellows, Hymowitz & Epstein, P.C., New City, N.Y. (Darren J. Epstein and

Joanne R. Horowitz of counsel), for appellant.Bartlett, McDonough, Bastone & Monaghan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., and Patricia D'Alvia of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for podiatric malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated September 16, 2008, which denied her motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated July 18, 2008, granting the unopposed motion of the defendant Deborah Ross pursuant to CPLR 1021, inter alia, to dismiss the action for failure to timely substitute a representative.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order of the same court entered upon her default in opposing the respondent's motion pursuant to CPLR 1021, inter alia, to dismiss the action for failure to timely substitute a representative. To be relieved of her default in opposing the respondent's motion, the plaintiff was required to show a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action ( see Nowell v. NYU Med. Ctr., 55 A.D.3d 573, 574, 865 N.Y.S.2d 309; Raciti v. Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 A.D.3d 1014, 864 N.Y.S.2d 176; Simpson v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 389, 392, 850 N.Y.S.2d 629; Bauer v. Mars Assoc., 35 A.D.3d 333, 825 N.Y.S.2d 536). The excuse of law office failure was vague and unsubstantiated and, thus, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the default ( see Chechen v. Spencer, 68 A.D.3d 801, 889 N.Y.S.2d 474; Murray v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 52 A.D.3d 792, 793, 861 N.Y.S.2d 372; St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v. Blue Ridge Ins. Co., 21 A.D.3d 946, 947, 801 N.Y.S.2d 617). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the action had merit ( see Mosberg v. Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 590 N.Y.S.2d 866, 605 N.E.2d 353; Salch v. Paratore, 60 N.Y.2d 851, 852, 470 N.Y.S.2d 138, 458 N.E.2d 379; Murray v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 52 A.D.3d at 794, 861 N.Y.S.2d 372; Bauer v. Mars Assoc., 35 A.D.3d at 334, 825 N.Y.S.2d 536; McDonnell v. Draizin, 24 A.D.3d 628, 629, 808 N.Y.S.2d 398).

The plaintiff's contention that she did not default in opposing the respondent's motion is improperly raised for the first time...