| Aaron v Greenberg & Reicher, LLP |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09289 [68 AD3d 533] |
| December 15, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Steven L. Aaron et al., Appellants, v Greenberg &Reicher, LLP, Respondent. |
—[*1] Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne (Christopher Russo of counsel),for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered October 20,2008, which denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate an order, same court and Justice, entered March9, 2007, dismissing the complaint based on plaintiffs' failure to appear at a preliminaryconference, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion was properly denied because, in addition to being untimely as it was broughtmore than one year after the order dismissing the complaint was served upon plaintiffs (CPLR5015 [a] [1]), plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to appearfor the preliminary conference following an adjournment that they had requested (see Fink v Antell, 19 AD3d 215[2005]). Plaintiff Fell's assertion that his medical condition prevented him from remembering theadjourned date, or apparently even recalling that the matter had been adjourned, wasunsupported by any relevant medical evidence (see Siskin v 221 Sullivan St. RealtyCorp., 180 AD2d 544 [1992], lv dismissed 80 NY2d 826 [1992]; Falso vNorton, 89 AD2d 635 [1982], appeal dismissed 57 NY2d 955 [1982]), and there isno reason proffered for why plaintiff Aaron was unable to remember the adjournment date or toinform the court of his alleged scheduling conflict.
In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider whether plaintiffs have demonstrated ameritorious cause of action (see e.g.M.R. v 2526 Valentine LLC, 58 AD3d 530, [*2]532[2009]). In any event, we note that they have not set forth such a claim.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.