CONKLIN v. METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD COMPANY (2007)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered October 2, 2006, which denied plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order that had dismissed the complaint, and to restore his action to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming plaintiff never received notice of the dismissal order and could move to vacate and restore more than one year after entry of the dismissal order, he still had to show a meritorious action and a reasonable excuse for his default (see Acevedo v. Navarro, 22 A.D.3d 391, 802 N.Y.S.2d 359 [2005] ).   Plaintiff's decision to prosecute his other claim, which was ultimately denied, does not excuse his neglect of this action (Bowman v. Lacovara, 37 A.D.3d 287, 829 N.Y.S.2d 510 [2007] ).   Moreover, even after two opportunities, plaintiff has still failed to establish the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Ortiz v. Silver Dollar Tr. Inc., 10 A.D.3d 585, 781 N.Y.S.2d 896 [2004] ).