Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co.
| Decision Date | 16 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2007-00736 |
| Citation | 44 A.D.3d 829,843 N.Y.S.2d 456,2007 NY Slip Op 07823 |
| Parties | MICHAEL LUGAUER et al., Respondents, v. FOREST CITY RATNER CO. et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the plaintiffs' motion is denied, and the defendants' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute is granted.
In order to excuse their default and to restore this action to the calendar, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for their failure to timely file the note of issue and a meritorious claim (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503 [1997]; Serby v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 AD3d 441 [2006]; Amato v Commack Union Free School Dist., 32 AD3d 807 [2006]; Chaudhry v Ziomek, 21 AD3d 922, 924 [2005]). Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a claim of law office failure should be supported by a "detailed and credible" explanation of the default at issue (see Henry v Kuveke, 9 AD3d 476, 479 [2004]; see also Gironda v Katzen, 19 AD3d 644, 645 [2005]). The conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiffs in this case does not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Holder, 31 AD3d 636 [2006]; Matter of Denton v City of Mount Vernon, 30 AD3d 600, 601 [2006]; McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569 [2006]; Solomon v Ramlall, 18 AD3d 461 [2005]; Grezinsky v Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 AD2d 542 [2003]). Moreover, the conclusory allegations contained in the complaint and the bill of particulars were an insufficient showing of a meritorious claim. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in timely filing a note of issue and to restore the case to the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byers v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp.
...N.Y.S.2d 109), and conclusory and unsubstantiated claims of law office failure are insufficient ( see Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co., 44 A.D.3d 829, 830, 843 N.Y.S.2d 456;Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v. Holder, 31 A.D.3d 636, 636–637, 817 N.Y.S.2d 916;Matter of Denton v. City of Mount Vernon, 3......
-
Fenner v. County of Nassau
...P.C., 47 A.D.3d at 784, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209; Matter of Bloom v. Lubow, 45 A.D.3d 680, 845 N.Y.S.2d 439; Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co., 44 A.D.3d 829, 830, 843 N.Y.S.2d 456). Furthermore, the plaintiff's motion papers failed to establish the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of a......
-
Bhatti v. Empire Realty Assocs., Inc.
...Richard, 95 A.D.3d at 876, 943 N.Y.S.2d 225;Fenner v. County of Nassau, 80 A.D.3d 555, 556, 914 N.Y.S.2d 653;Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co., 44 A.D.3d 829, 830, 843 N.Y.S.2d 456). As the plaintiffs failed to provide a justifiable excuse, we need not address whether they established the e......
-
Mortgage v. Spoleti
...N.Y.S.2d 274 [2d Dept 2007] ; Matter of Bloom v. Lubow, 45 AD3d 680, 845 N.Y.S.2d 439 [2d Dept 2007] ; Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co., 44 AD3d 829, 843 N.Y.S.2d 456 [2d Dept 2007] ).Plaintiff's repeated failure to appear at the court-ordered conferences also included repeated failure by ......