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.
Audrey McCLAREN, appellant-respondent, v. BELL ATLANTIC, defendant,
Brooklyn Union Gas Company, respondent-appellant. (Action No. 1). Audrey McClaren, appellant, v. City of New York, respondent. (Action No. 2).
In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated January 18, 2005, as denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate a prior order of the same court dated February 26, 2004, which, upon her failure to appear for oral argument of a motion, dismissed the complaints pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(b), and the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas Company cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it in Action No. 1 as academic.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Brooklyn Union Gas Company and City of New York payable by the plaintiff.
The complaints were dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(b) following the failure of the plaintiff's counsel to appear for oral argument of a motion. To be relieved of the default in appearing, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Rubenbauer v. Mekelburg, 22 A.D.3d 826, 827, 803 N.Y.S.2d 183; Amato v. Fast Repair, 15 A.D.3d 429, 790 N.Y.S.2d 510; Feuer v. Vernon Manor Coop. Apts., Section I, 303 A.D.2d 448, 755 N.Y.S.2d 898). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff's conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure was insufficient to constitute a justifiable excuse (see Matter of Hye-Young Chon v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 22 A.D.3d 849, 803 N.Y.S.2d 699; Fekete v. Camp Skwere, 16 A.D.3d 544, 792 N.Y.S.2d 127). Moreover, she failed to demonstrate the meritorious nature of her action (see Rubenbauer v. Mekelburg, supra at 827, 803 N.Y.S.2d 183; Solomon v. Ramlall, 18 A.D.3d 461, 795 N.Y.S.2d 76).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the cross motion was academic.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 20, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)