| Henry v Lewis |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03979 [118 AD3d 669] |
| June 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Althea Henry, Appellant, v Delroy Lewis et al.,Respondents. |
Thomas Weiss & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the parties' rights and obligationsunder a residential lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court,Queens County (Schulman, J.), entered June 20, 2012, which denied her motion, ineffect, to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the trialcalendar.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On June 17, 2009, the action was dismissed after the parties failed to appear in theTrial Scheduling Part.
To vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore it to the trial calendar, theplaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and apotentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene DiLorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138 [1986]; Schmitt v Jeyalingam, 71AD3d 757 [2010]; Davidson v Valentin, 65 AD3d 1075 [2009]).
The default cannot be excused based on the plaintiff's bare allegations of law officefailure on the part of her prior attorney (see Vardaros v Zapas, 105 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2013]; Bazoyah v Herschitz, 79 AD3d1081, 1082 [2010]; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512 [1998]).Here, in support of her motion, the plaintiff failed to explain why she waited2
The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Frey v Chiou, 94 AD3d810, 811 [2012]; Davidsonv Valentin, 65 AD3d 1075 [2009]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying theplaintiff's motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the actionto the trial calendar. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ.,concur.