| Knowles v Schaeffer |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01457 [70 AD3d 897] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Anna E. Knowles, Appellant, v Bruce Schaeffer et al.,Defendants, and Deborah Ross, Respondent. |
—[*1] Bartlett, McDonough, Bastone & Monaghan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Edward J. Guardaro,Jr., and Patricia D'Alvia of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for podiatric malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated September 16, 2008, which deniedher motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated July 18, 2008, granting the unopposedmotion of the defendant Deborah Ross pursuant to CPLR 1021, inter alia, to dismiss the actionfor failure to timely substitute a representative.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order of the samecourt entered upon her default in opposing the respondent's motion pursuant to CPLR 1021, interalia, to dismiss the action for failure to timely substitute a representative. To be relieved of herdefault in opposing the respondent's motion, the plaintiff was required to show a reasonableexcuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Nowell v NYU Med. Ctr.,55 AD3d 573, 574 [2008]; Raciti v Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 AD3d 1014 [2008];Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]; Bauer v MarsAssoc., 35 AD3d 333 [2006]). The excuse of law office failure was vague andunsubstantiated and, thus, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the default (see Chechenv Spencer, 68 AD3d 801 [2009]; Murray v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,52 AD3d 792, 793 [2008]; St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v Blue Ridge Ins. Co., 21 AD3d946, 947 [2005]). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the action had merit(see Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941, 942 [1992]; Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d851, 852 [1983]; Murray v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 52 AD3d at 794;Bauer v Mars Assoc., 35 AD3d at 334; McDonnell v Draizin, 24 AD3d 628, 629[2005]).
The plaintiff's contention that she did not default in opposing the respondent's motion isimproperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Pugliese v Mondello, 67 AD3d 880[2009]; Fletcher v Westbury Toyota, Inc., 67 AD3d 730 [2009]; Matter of WestBushwick Urban Renewal Area Phase 2, 69 AD3d 176 [2009]; Freitas v City of NewYork, 66 AD3d 732 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.