Wechsler v. FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
| Citation | 295 A.D.2d 340,742 N.Y.S.2d 668 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE A. WECHSLER, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 03 June 2002 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court issued an order in April 2000 which directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue by August 28, 2000. The plaintiff failed to comply with that deadline and obtained an extension until February 13, 2001, based on his attorney's excuse that, due to a clerical error, the original deadline had not been properly diaried. The order granting the plaintiff an extension until February 13, 2001, also advised him that the failure to timely file a note of issue would result in dismissal of the action. Upon the plaintiff's failure to file a note of issue by February 13, 2001, and to appear at a status conference on February 27, 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. In May 2001 the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to reinstate the complaint.
The plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his failure to timely file a note of issue and that his action has merit (see Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499; Raffa v Cook, 289 AD2d 385; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190). The court may accept law office failure that is not willful or deliberate as a reasonable excuse (see Reyes v Ross, 289 AD2d 554; Flomenhaft v Baron, 281 AD2d 389). However, conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions of law office failure are insufficient (see Werbin v Locicero, 287 AD2d 617), and a pattern of willful default and neglect will not be excused (see Wynne v Wagner, 262 AD2d 556; Campenni v Ridgecroft Estates Owners, 261 AD2d 496).
The plaintiff took no steps to obtain further discovery during the four-month period before the August 28, 2000, deadline for filing a note of issue, or during the subsequent extension of that deadline, despite the fact that the plaintiff requested those postponements to conduct additional discovery. The statements by the plaintiff's attorney regarding his personal problems and those of his law firm did not adequately explain the neglect of the case during the 90-day period immediately preceding the February 13, 2001, deadline. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion on the ground that law office failure was insufficient to excuse the delay (see Baczkowski v Collins...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini
...N.Y.S.2d 357;see Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 A.D.3d 783, 784, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209;Wechsler v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 295 A.D.2d 340, 341, 742 N.Y.S.2d 668). Here, the defendants Riccardo Cervini and Angela M. Cervini (hereinafter together the defendants) failed to establ......
-
Blake v. United States
...921 N.Y.S.2d 643;Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 A.D.3d 783, 784, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209;Wechsler v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 295 A.D.2d 340, 341, 742 N.Y.S.2d 668). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting the defendant's excuse of law office failure, ......
-
Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Hamilton
...HCO, Inc., 45 A.D.3d 530, 530-31 [2d Dep't 2007]; Solomon v. Ramlall, 18 A.D.3d 461, 461 [2d Dep't 2005]; Wechsler v. First Unum Life Insurance, 295 A.D.2d 340, 341 [2d Dep't 2002].) Thus, "[w]here a party asserts law office failure, it must provide 'a detailed and credible explanation of t......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Preferred Trucking Serv. Corp.
...are insufficient ( see Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co., 44 A.D.3d 829, 830, 843 N.Y.S.2d 456 [2007];Wechsler v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 295 A.D.2d 340, 341, 742 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2002] ). Here, defense counsel alleged that the failure to submit opposition papers in response to plaintiff's m......