From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

William Wild v. Target Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 2010
74 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-10105.

June 1, 2010.

In an action to recover damages for injury to property and for injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 3, 2009, which denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (b) and to restore the action to the pre-note of issue calendar.

Galvin Morgan, Delmar, N.Y. (Stepen H. Orr, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Tarshis, Catania, Liberth, Mahon Milligram, PLLC (Holly L. Reinhardt of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Miller, Eng, Hall and Austin, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The action was dismissed when the plaintiffs failed to appear at a duly scheduled status conference. To vacate the dismissal and to restore the action to the pre-note of issue calendar, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default in appearing at the conference and a meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 330 Wythe Ave. Assoc., LLC v ABR Constr., Inc., 55 AD3d 599; Jones v New York City Hous. Auth., 13 AD3d 489; Kandel v Hoffman, 309 AD2d 904; Precision Envelope Co. v Marcus Co., 306 AD2d 263). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by competent proof, the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see Brownfteld v Ferris, 49 AD3d 790, 791; Smith v City of New York, 237 AD2d 344, 345).


Summaries of

William Wild v. Target Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 2010
74 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

William Wild v. Target Corp.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM WILD et al., Appellants, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 1, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4782
901 N.Y.S.2d 552

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank v. Handler

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs motion to vacate the FDP dismissal should have been denied and that, in…

Thomas v. Avalon Gardens Rehab. & Health Care Ctr.

“ ‘A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default is required to demonstrate a…