Wild v. Target Corp..

• Decision Date: 01 June 2010
• Citation: 901 N.Y.S.2d 552,74 A.D.3d 799,2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 04782
• Parties: William WILD, et al., appellants,v.TARGET CORPORATION, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

74 A.D.3d 799
901 N.Y.S.2d 552
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 04782

William WILD, et al., appellants,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, respondent.

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

June 1, 2010.

Galvin & Morgan, Delmar, N.Y. (Stepen H. Orr, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.Tarshis, Catania, Liberth, Mahon & Milligram, PLLC (Holly L. Reinhardt of counsel), for respondent.

[74 A.D.3d 799] In an action to recover damages for injury to property and for injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 3, 2009, which denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(b) and to restore the action to the pre-note of issue calendar.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The action was dismissed when the plaintiffs failed to appear at a duly-scheduled status conference. To vacate the dismissal and to restore the action to the pre-note of issue calendar, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default in appearing at the conference and a meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; 330 Wythe Ave. Assoc., LLC v. ABR Constr., Inc., 55 A.D.3d 599, 864 N.Y.S.2d 314; Jones v. New York City Hous. Auth., 13 A.D.3d 489, 787 N.Y.S.2d 94; Kandel v. Hoffman, 309 A.D.2d 904, 766 N.Y.S.2d 115; Precision Envelope Co. v. Marcus & Co., 306 A.D.2d 263, 760 N.Y.S.2d 334). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by competent proof, the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see Brownfield v. Ferris, 49 A.D.3d 790, 791, 855 N.Y.S.2d 565; Smith v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 344, 345, 655 N.Y.S.2d 419).