Mosaleva v Jerome Ave. Tenants HDFC

[*1] Mosaleva v Jerome Ave. Tenants HDFC 2015 NY Slip Op 51002(U) Decided on July 7, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 7, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570425/13

Inna Mosaleva, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Jerome Avenue Tenants HDFC and Total Realty Associates, Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered June 12, 2014, which denied her motion to vacate an order dismissing the action due to her failure to proceed to trial.

Per Curiam.

Order (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered June 12, 2014, affirmed, without costs.

The underlying action was dismissed on January 29, 2013 upon the plaintiff's unwillingness or inability to proceed on the adjourned trial date. Pursuant to Civil Court rule [22 NYCRR] § 208.14(b), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff is unprepared to proceed to trial. In order to be relieved of that default, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Fink v Antell, 19 AD3d 215 [2005]).

Here, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of plaintiff's vacatur motion. Plaintiff's assertion that a medical condition prevented her from proceeding on January 29, 2013, was unsupported by any relevant medical evidence (see Siskin v 221 Sullivan St. Realty Corp., 180 AD2d 544 [1992], lv dismissed 80 NY2d 826 [1992]; Guerre v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of NY, 300 AD2d 29 [2002]). Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: July 07, 2015