| Chechen v Spencer |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09177 [68 AD3d 801] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Najim H. Chechen, Appellant, v Kevin Spencer,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for trespass and nuisance, the plaintiff appeals from (1) anorder of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated February 8, 2008, which deniedhis motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 and torestore the action to the calendar, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 30, 2008, whichdenied his motion for leave to renew his prior motion.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
After the plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduled status conference on November 7, 2007 thecourt scheduled another status conference to be held on December 11, 2007. The action wasdismissed when the plaintiff failed to appear at the December 11, 2007 status conference (see22 NYCRR 202.27 [b]). To be relieved of the default in appearing at that conference, theplaintiff was required to show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of ameritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Barnave v United Ambulette, Inc., 66 AD3d 620 [2009]; Brownfield v Ferris, 49 AD3d790, 791 [2008]; Zeltser vSacerdote, 24 AD3d 541, 542 [2005]). The plaintiff's counsel's excuse of law officefailure was vague and unsubstantiated and, thus, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for thedefault (see Murray v New York CityHealth & Hosps. Corp., 52 AD3d 792, 793 [2008]; cf. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v Blue Ridge Ins. Co., 21 AD3d946, 947 [2005]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of ameritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff'smotion to vacate the dismissal of the action (see Brownfield v Ferris, 49 AD3d at 791).
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew. The plaintifffailed to provide a reasonable justification for the failure to present the new facts in support ofthe original motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; cf. Brown Bark I, L.P. v Imperial Dev. & Constr. Corp., 65 AD3d510, 512 [2009]; Reshevsky vUnited Water N.Y., Inc., 46 AD3d 532, 533 [2007]; Financial Pac. Leasing, LLC v D & D Wire, Inc., 44 AD3d 706,707 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.