Opinion
December 17, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.).
Plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of showing a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for not restoring the action within one year after it was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, lack of prejudice to the opposing party, and an intent not to abandon the action (Pak Chong Mar v New York Infirmary-Beekan Downtown Hosp., 161 A.D.2d 373). The showing of merit consisted of nothing more than a bare and conclusory affidavit (see, Romanoff v St. Vincent's Hosp. Med. Center, 97 A.D.2d 382) that merely repeated the allegations of the complaint (see, Monacelli v Board of Educ., 92 A.D.2d 930). Concerning the excuse, it is not sufficient that pretrial proceedings are generally pending (Harman v Grabowetsky, 21 A.D.2d 862, appeal dismissed 14 N.Y.2d 957), or that another party failed to appear for deposition (Hurley v Dougherty, 56 A.D.2d 974, lv dismissed 42 N.Y.2d 996). The delay has prejudiced defendants' ability to prepare their defense (see, Rodriquez v Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 A.D.2d 720, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 874), and plaintiffs failed to show at least "some activity" during the year before dismissal such as might have demonstrated that it was not their intent to abandon the action (Curtin v Grand Union Co., 124 A.D.2d 918, 919).
We decline to review plaintiffs' argument that the failure to restore was due to law office failure (see, CPLR 2005), such being presented for the first time on appeal (West Side Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. v Hirschfeld, 101 A.D.2d 380, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 605). Were we to consider it, we would find it to be without merit (see, De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 A.D.2d 530).
Finally, relief pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) on the ground of excusable default is not available to plaintiffs, since a motion for that relief must be made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment with written notice of entry. Even if the motion were timely, such relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and depends on the same factors — the merit of the action, the extent of the delay, the excuse for the delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and lack of intent to abandon the action (I.J. Handa, P.C. v Imperato, 159 A.D.2d 484) — that were considered and found wanting.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.