Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jerome KELLERT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MAIL BOXES, ETC. USA, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 17, 1996, which denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal of this action based on their failure to appear at a conference, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 7, 1997, which denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue the prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
The court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing this action on default when both parties failed to appear at a scheduled status conference in January 1993 (see, Uniform Rules Trial Cts. [22 NYCRR] § 202.27[c] ), and properly denied plaintiffs' March 1995 motion to vacate their default. Even were we to accept plaintiffs' contention that the standard for vacatur of a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 should not be applied in this case, and apply instead the standard applicable to a vacatur sought under CPLR 5015(a), we would conclude that the motion was properly denied since plaintiffs failed to make an adequate showing of merit (see, Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v. Rosenberg, 245 A.D.2d 427, 666 N.Y.S.2d 476; see also, Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v. Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 N.Y.2d 831, 523 N.Y.S.2d 441, 517 N.E.2d 1327) and that they had a reasonable excuse for failing to appear, especially considering their egregious non-compliance with a preliminary conference order directing them to file a note of issue by March 1991.
The order denying reargument is nonappealable. We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 03, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)