Arthur v. Yonkers

3 Citing cases

  1. Stabile v. Gomez

    280 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    The court properly denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the default in appearing at the conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their default and failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015[a][1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. Dev. v. Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 N.Y.2d 797, 831; Barasch v. Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594; Valente v. New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 252 A.D.2d 580; Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v. Rosenberg, 245 A.D.2d 427; Arthur v. City of Yonkers, 237 A.D.2d 474).

  2. DeStefano v. DeStefano

    279 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

    The plaintiff's action was dismissed when he failed to appear at a compliance conference. A court will vacate such a default and restore a case to the calendar upon a showing of a meritorious cause of action, a justifiable excuse for the default, and the absence of willfulness (see, Perez v. Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 A.D.2d 457; Arthur v. City of Yonkers, 237 A.D.2d 474; Brown v. Ryder Truck Rental, 172 A.D.2d 477). The plaintiff failed to satisfy these elements. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion.

  3. Valente v. New York City Indus. Dev. Agency

    252 A.D.2d 580 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    Thereafter, the plaintiff waited approximately eight years to make the instant motion to restore. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a meritorious cause of action or a reasonable excuse for his delay, we find that the Supreme Court did not err in denying the plaintiffs motion (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v. Rosenberg, 245 A.D.2d 427; Arthur v. City of Yonkers, 237 A.D.2d 474). O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.