| Perez v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00373 [47 AD3d 505] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Ana Perez, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authorityet al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Cullen & Dykman, LLP, Brooklyn (Joseph Miller of counsel), for New York City HousingAuthority, respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel), forCity of New York, respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered on or about August 7,2006, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior orderdismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's computerized records, which were not included in the record but of which wetake judicial notice (cf. Crawford v LizClaiborne, Inc., 45 AD3d 284 n 1 [2007]; Joseph v Morris Apts. Corp., 236AD2d 297 [1997]), show that in accordance with the warning in the court's scheduling noticedated November 23, 2004, admittedly received by plaintiff's attorney, the action was dismissedon March 2, 2005 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 when plaintiff failed to appear for a pre-note ofissue conference. That an order of dismissal was never signed by the court and entered does notrender the dismissal ineffective or relieve plaintiff of the burden of showing a reasonable excusefor her failure to appear at the conference and a meritorious cause of action, as required in amotion to vacate the dismissal of an action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (American Cont. Props., Inc. v Lynn, 32AD3d 700, 700 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 921 [2006]). The conclusory andperfunctory claim of law office failure asserted by plaintiff's attorney—due to the solopractitioner's overbooking of cases and inability to keep track of his appearances—doesnot constitute a reasonable excuse (see Achampong v Weigelt, 240 AD2d 247, 248[1997]), particularly in view of plaintiff's pattern of dilatory behavior in prosecuting the matter(see Walker v City of New York, 46 AD3d 278 [2007]; Metral v Bonifacio, 309AD2d 724 [2003]). In the latter regard, it appears that an extant November 1997 preliminaryconference order directed the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness by November1998, and that there was no significant activity in the case for some four years prior to the March2005 conference. We would add, as did the motion court, that plaintiff also fails to [*2]show a meritorious cause of action. We have considered plaintiff'sother arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli,Williams and Moskowitz, JJ.