From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tomczak v. Roetzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1954
283 App. Div. 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Opinion

March 17, 1954.

Present — McCurn, P.J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.


Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party, with leave to plaintiffs-appellants to renew on proper papers, if so advised. Memorandum: We do not agree with the Special Term that the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to entertain appellants' motion to set aside the order of March 5, 1952, dismissing the complaints for failure to prosecute. The inherent power of the Supreme Court to set aside or vacate judgments in furtherance of the ends of justice is unquestioned and exists independently of section 108 of the Civil Practice Act. ( Hatch v. Central Nat. Bank, 78 N.Y. 487; Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 81 N.Y. 646; Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325.) Nevertheless, we think the order denying the motion must be affirmed because of the failure to set forth facts showing meritorious causes of action as well as the nature and extent of the injuries. ( Gritz v. Gavigan, 69 N.Y.S.2d 18; Gabrielsen v. Brookhattan Trucking Co., 250 App. Div. 861.) The appellants were also required to show a satisfactory explanation or excuse for the inordinate delay in bringing the causes on for trial (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 156; Fischer v. Tushnett, 256 App. Div. 833), but in this respect we find the moving papers sufficient in view of the allegations that the delay was due to the neglect and misrepresentations of appellants' former attorney. It has long been settled in this State that the Supreme Court has power to relieve a party to a pending action from a judgment or order obtained against him by reason of the neglect, ignorance or fraud of his attorney. ( Sharp v. Mayor of City of N.Y., 31 Barb. 578; Gedney v. Diorio, 190 App. Div. 85; Gideon v. Dwyer, 17 Misc. 233, affd. 7 App. Div. 608; Atkinson v. Abraham, 78 App. Div. 498; Michel v. City of Troy, 279 App. Div. 837.) In view of the extraordinary facts disclosed by this record, we think appellants should not be foreclosed from again presenting their application upon proper papers. All concur.


Summaries of

Tomczak v. Roetzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1954
283 App. Div. 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)
Case details for

Tomczak v. Roetzer

Case Details

Full title:HELEN TOMCZAK, Appellant, v. JOSEPH ROETZER, Respondent. JOSEPH TOMCZAK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 17, 1954

Citations

283 App. Div. 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Citing Cases

Wasserbauer v. Marine Bank

In this regard, it may again be noted that our courts not only have inherent power to set aside or vacate…

Karpus v. State of New York

The Supreme Court, in an action at law, possesses the inherent power to set aside or vacate judgments, in…