From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conklin v. Metro North

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 2007
45 A.D.3d 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

November 1, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered October 2, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a prior order that had dismissed the complaint, and to restore his action to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Buckley, JJ.


Assuming plaintiff never received notice of the dismissal order and could move to vacate and restore more than one year after entry of the dismissal order, he still had to show a meritorious action and a reasonable excuse for his default ( see Acevedo v Navarro, 22 AD3d 391). Plaintiffs decision to prosecute his other claim, which was ultimately denied, does not excuse his neglect of this action ( Bowman v Lacovara, 37 AD3d 287). Moreover, even after two opportunities, plaintiff has still failed to establish the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see Ortiz v Silver Dollar Tr. Inc., 10 AD3d 585).


Summaries of

Conklin v. Metro North

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 2007
45 A.D.3d 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Conklin v. Metro North

Case Details

Full title:GARY W. CONKLIN, Appellant, v. METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD COMPANY…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 2007

Citations

45 A.D.3d 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
844 N.Y.S.2d 272