From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acosta v. Riverdale Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 2010
72 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2552.

April 20, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered May 15, 2009, which granted plaintiff's motion to vacate a default judgment and restore this matter to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Shay Maguire LLP, East Meadow (Jaret SanPietro of counsel), for Riverdale Development, LLC, Kapson Riverdale Corp., Kapson Senior Quarters Corp., Henry Johnson Associates, Inc., Henry Hudson Parkway Building, Inc. and ARV Assisted Living, Inc., appellants.

Ahmuty, Demers McManus, New York (Patrick J. Kenny of counsel), for Otis Elevator Company, appellant.

Louis Atilano, Bronx, for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.


A compliance conference was held during the pendency of a stay of the action. Defendants appeared, but plaintiff, then pro se, did not. The conference was adjourned, and plaintiff was never notified of the adjournment date. Initially, we note that the action was improperly dismissed under Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.27. Although plaintiff did not appear for the adjourned conference, she was wholly ignorant of the conference date through no fault of her own. Thus, section 202.27 (b) is inapplicable.

We need not consider the merits of plaintiff's claim because the order entering the default under section 202.27 was improperly entered. Finally, vacatur here was consistent with the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits ( Telep v Republic El. Corp., 267 AD2d 57, 58-59).


Summaries of

Acosta v. Riverdale Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 2010
72 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Acosta v. Riverdale Development

Case Details

Full title:BELKIS ACOSTA, Respondent, v. RIVERDALE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 2010

Citations

72 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3157
898 N.Y.S.2d 451

Citing Cases

Mackins v. City of New York

[t]hat it is the general policy of the courts to permit actions to be determined by a trial on the merits…

Jones ex rel. D.D. v. City of New York

[t]hat it is the general policy of the courts to permit actions to be determined by a trial on the merits…