Opinion
2017–00084 15306/10
07-11-2018
Marlon O. LEVY, Respondent, v. BERMAN MOTORCARS, Defendant, Dennis Newby, Appellant.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Bethpage, N.Y. (Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for appellant. Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for respondent.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Bethpage, N.Y. (Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for appellant.
Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Dennis Newby appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert L. Nahman, J.), dated November 3, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to restore the action to the calendar.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and restore the case to the calendar, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely file a note of issue and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e] ; Bender v. Autism Speaks, Inc., 139 A.D.3d 989, 990, 32 N.Y.S.3d 312 ; Bischoff v. Hoffman, 112 A.D.3d 659, 976 N.Y.S.2d 406 ; Las Palmeras De Ossining Rest., Inc. v. Midway Ctr. Corp., 107 A.D.3d 853, 853–854, 968 N.Y.S.2d 118 ; Hoffman v. Kessler, 28 A.D.3d 718, 816 N.Y.S.2d 481 ). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the court (see Glukhman v. Bay 49th St. Condominium, LLC, 100 A.D.3d 594, 595, 953 N.Y.S.2d 304 ). Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see Bischoff v. Hoffman, 112 A.D.3d at 660, 976 N.Y.S.2d 406 ; Las Palmeras De Ossining Rest., Inc. v. Midway Ctr. Corp., 107 A.D.3d at 853–854, 968 N.Y.S.2d 118 ; Hoffman v. Kessler, 28 A.D.3d at 718, 816 N.Y.S.2d 481 ). Further, the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Donnelly v. Treeline Cos., 66 A.D.3d 563, 889 N.Y.S.2d 2, cf. Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 A.D.3d 783, 784, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209 ).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to restore the action to the calendar.
MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.