At page 395 Granting motion to vacate dismissal for late appearance8 citing cases
- Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. SRCC Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 51072(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024).unpublished Corp. , 306 AD2d 394, 395 [2d Dept 2003]; Tartaglione v Tiffany , 280 AD2d 543, 543 [2d Dept 2001]; Adler v Mitchell , 2022 NY Slip Op 50665[U] , *2, 2022 NY Misc LEXIS 3194 , *3 [Sup Ct, NY County, Jul. 25, 2022])" ( Ventura v Choi , 2023…
- Johnson v. Willis, 2024 NY Slip Op 30337(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedCorp., 306 AD2d 394, 395 [2d Dept 2003]; Tartaglione v Tiffany, 280 AD2d 543, 543 [2d Dept 2001]; Adler v Mitchell, 2022 NY Slip Op 50665[U] , *2, 2022 NY Misc LEXIS 3194 , *3 [Sup Ct, N.Y.
- Taylor v. Mercado, 2024 NY Slip Op 50048(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024).unpublished Corp. , 306 AD2d 394, 395 [2d Dept 2003]; Tartaglione v Tiffany , 280 AD2d 543, 543 [2d Dept 2001]; Adler v Mitchell , 2022 NY Slip Op 50665[U] , *2, 2022 NY Misc LEXIS 3194 , *3 [Sup Ct, NY County, Jul. 25, 2022])" ( Ventura v Choi , 2023…
- NYC Taxi Grp., Inc. v. Gallardo, No. 2020 NYSlipOp 50628(U) (N.Y. App. Term. May 29, 2020).publishedCorp. , 306 AD2d 394, 395 [2003]).
- Matter of Aleeyah T.M. (Shalicia A.), 127 A.D.3d 1197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedCorp., 306 AD2d 394, 395 [2003]).
- Ceitlin v. City of New York, 16 Misc. 3d 887 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007).publishedCorp., 306 AD2d 394, 395 [2d Dept 2003].) A conflict of interest would also “excuse the Corporation Counsel’s defense obligation pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-k (2).” (See Blood v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 121 AD2d at 134 .)…
v.
Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc.
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated July 3, 2002, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, in effect, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.
The plaintiff’s action was dismissed when the plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at a trial calendar call of the action. To be relieved of the default in appearing at the calendar call, the plaintiff was required to show both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 22 NYCRR 202.27; Mevorah v King, 303 AD2d 657 [2003]; D’Aniello v T.E.H. Slopes, 301 AD2d 556 [2003]; Bloom v Primus Automotive Fin. Servs., 292 AD2d 410 [2002]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 197 [2001]). The plaintiff demonstrated both. The plaintiffs counsel was only 10 to 15 minutes late in appearing for the calendar call, and that counsel was late simply because he stepped outside the courtroom to make a phone call to his office to determine, inter alia, how the action should proceed (see e.g. D'Aniello v T.E.H. Slopes, supra). In addition, the bill of particulars, verified by the plaintiff, was sufficient to demonstrate the merits of the action (see Pastore v Golub Corp., 184 AD2d 827 [1992]; Key Bank v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 144 AD2d 847 [1988]; Nicholas v Cashelard Rest., 249 AD2d 187 [1998]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate the dismissal. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.