From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. New York City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 11, 2002
293 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

725

April 11, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about May 22, 2000, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's cross motion to vacate her default and restore her action to the conference calendar and denied defendants' motion to preclude plaintiff from offering evidence at trial for her failure to serve a timely bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Lawrence Heisler, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Williams, P.J., Saxe, Lerner, Rubin, Marlow, JJ.


Plaintiff's default, based on her failure to appear at a preliminary conference, was properly vacated. It appears that the parties had no notice of the conference date and, in fact, that they were, at the time of the scheduled conference, in the midst of complying with a preliminary conference order directing plaintiff's deposition (see, Telep v. Republic Elevator Corp., 267 A.D.2d 57). In addition, the records of plaintiff's treating chiropractor, the transcript of the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and the reports of defendants' physicians sufficiently demonstrate that plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action (see, Levy v. New York City Hous. Auth., 287 A.D.2d 281).

Also proper was the denial of defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's pleadings. Although plaintiff's service of her bill of particulars was delayed for a lengthy period, defendants have not made the showing requisite to the drastic relief they seek, that plaintiff's delay was wilful, contumacious or due to bad faith (see, Dauria v. City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 459, 460). Finally, defendants' contention, that they would be prejudiced if this matter were allowed to proceed, is unpersuasive in light of the fact that a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing was held eight months after plaintiff's accident, at which defendants' counsel questioned plaintiff about how the accident occurred and the extent of her injuries (see, Hassan v. New York City Hous. Auth., 286 A.D.2d 303, 305).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Jones v. New York City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 11, 2002
293 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Jones v. New York City Transit Auth

Case Details

Full title:SHIRLEY JONES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 11, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 320

Citing Cases

Jeganathan v. O'Reilly

The proffered excuse evinces a lack of reasonable inquiry regarding the purported scheduling error and thus…

Gonzalez v. Vanguard Constr. & Dev. Co.

(Patricia Postel et al. v New York University Hospital, 262 AD2d 40 [1st Dept 1999]). That being said,…