Pavlou v. Assocs. Food Stores, Inc., 96 A.D.3d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Pavlou v. Assocs. Food Stores, Inc., 96 A.D.3d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re 542 A Realty, LLC (nyappdiv, 2014-06-25)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re 542 A Realty, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The petitioner demonstrated that it did not have notice of the trial calendar call of the proceeding through the uncontroverted affirmation of its attorney, which stated that counsel did not receive any notice for a court appearance (see Pavlou v Associates Food Stores, Inc., 96 AD3d 919, 919-920 [2012]; Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 78 AD3d 630, 632 [2010]; M.S.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re 542 A Realty, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The petitioner demonstrated that it did not have notice of the trial calendar call of the proceeding through the uncontroverted affirmation of its attorney, which stated that counsel did not receive any notice for a court appearance (see Pavlou v Associates Food Stores, Inc., 96 AD3d 919, 919-920 [2012]; Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 78 AD3d 630, 632 [2010]; M.S.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosas v. Stieg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
As the plaintiff did not have notice of the compliance conference, the plaintiffs default was a nullity (see Pavlou v Associates Food Stores, Inc., 96 AD3d 919, 919-920 [2012]; Tragni v Tragni, 21 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2005]; Pelaez v Westchester Med.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosas v. Stieg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
As the plaintiff did not have notice of the compliance conference, the plaintiffs default was a nullity (see Pavlou v Associates Food Stores, Inc., 96 AD3d 919, 919-920 [2012]; Tragni v Tragni, 21 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2005]; Pelaez v Westchester Med.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vasquez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In support of her motion, the plaintiff demonstrated that she did not have notice of the September 2, 2009, court conference (see Pavlou v Associates Food Stores, Inc., 96 AD3d 919, 919 [2012]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vasquez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In support of her motion, the plaintiff demonstrated that she did not have notice of the September 2, 2009, court conference (see Pavlou v Associates Food Stores, Inc., 96 AD3d 919, 919 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas Pavlou
v.
Associates Food Stores, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 919
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated June 29, 2011, which, upon an order dated June 2, 2011, denying their motion, in effect, to vacate an order entered April 21, 2010, sua sponte, dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and to restore the action to the trial calendar, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, to vacate the order entered April 21, 2010, and to restore the action to the trial calendar is granted, the order entered April 21, 2010, is vacated, and the order dated June 2, 2011, is modified accordingly.

In an order entered April 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, sua sponte, dismissed this action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 on the ground that the plaintiffs failed “to proceed as directed by the court” when they did not appear on a scheduled court date. The plaintiffs demonstrated that they did not have notice of the trial calendar call of the action through the uncontroverted affidavit of their attorney, which stated that counsel did not receive any notice for a court appearance (see M.S. Hi-Tech, Inc. v Thompson, 23 AD3d 442, 443 [2005]). Without notice of the[*920] court appearance, the plaintiffs’ default was a nullity, as was the remedy imposed by the Supreme Court as a consequence (see CPLR 5015 [a] [4]; Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 78 AD3d 630, 632 [2010]; Tragni v Tragni, 21 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2005]; Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d 375, 376 [2005]). In this situation, vacatur of the default was required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious cause of action was required (see Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 78 AD3d at 632; Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d at 376; Kumer v Passafiume, 258 AD2d 625, 626 [1999]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, to vacate the order entered April 21, 2010, sua sponte, dismissing the action, and to restore the action to the trial calendar should have been granted. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.