From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Selechnik v. Law Office of Howard R. Birnbach

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 10, 2014
120 A.D.3d 1220 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-09-10

Jacob SELECHNIK, et al., appellants, v. LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD R. BIRNBACH, respondent, et al., defendant.

Alan B. Brill, P.C., Suffern, N.Y. (Sheila S. Rosenrauch of counsel), for appellants. Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Christopher Russo and Jonathan Harwood of counsel), for respondent.


Alan B. Brill, P.C., Suffern, N.Y. (Sheila S. Rosenrauch of counsel), for appellants. Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Christopher Russo and Jonathan Harwood of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and negligent hiring and retention, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered September 26, 2012, as denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court dated January 12, 2012, entered upon their default in appearing at pretrial conferences, directing the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Law Office of Howard R. Birnbach.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To vacate their default in appearing at a pretrial conference, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Dobbins v. Vartabedian, 23 A.D.3d 431, 431, 805 N.Y.S.2d 576). Since the plaintiffs failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at numerous court-ordered conferences, it is unnecessary to consider whether they demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action ( see Ogazi v. Ogazi, 46 A.D.3d 646, 646, 848 N.Y.S.2d 248). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was to vacate an order of the same court dated January 12, 2012, entered upon their default, directing the dismissal the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Law Office of Howard R. Birnbach ( see CPLR 5015[a] [1]; Dobbins v. Vartabedian, 23 A.D.3d at 431, 805 N.Y.S.2d 576). MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Selechnik v. Law Office of Howard R. Birnbach

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 10, 2014
120 A.D.3d 1220 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Selechnik v. Law Office of Howard R. Birnbach

Case Details

Full title:Jacob SELECHNIK, et al., appellants, v. LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD R. BIRNBACH…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 10, 2014

Citations

120 A.D.3d 1220 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
120 A.D.3d 1220
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 6072

Citing Cases

Wright v. City of Poughkeepsie

ORDERED that the order dated January 9, 2015, is affirmed, with costs. To vacate her default in appearing at…

Vitolo v. Suarez

Moreover, the plaintiff's pattern of failing to comply with discovery demands, the preliminary conference…