Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Macias v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 5, 1997

240 A.D.2d 196; 658 N.Y.S.2d 276; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5981

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Chun v. North American Mortgage Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
HSBC Bank USA v. Josephs-Byrd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Grant v. Rattoballi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Perlman v. Petratos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Toribio v. J.D. Posillico, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Kingsley v. Kantor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered April 9,1996, which, upon plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior order relieving her attorney, to compel disclosure and to extend her time to file a note of issue, sua sponte dismissed the action, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 24, 1996, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in sua sponte dismissing this ten-year-old personal injury action where plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the preliminary conference order requiring her appearance for deposition (see, CPLR 3126 [3]), and plaintiff’s attorney did not move to vacate the order relieving him, which he had sought on grounds of plaintiff’s lack of cooperation, for eight months after entry thereof, at which time he was allegedly again retained by plaintiff. Denial of a motion for. reargument is not appealable (see, Amankwa v New York City Hous. Auth., 224 AD2d 262). Renewal was also properly denied since no previously unavailable or unknown evidence was submitted (see, Lee v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 226 AD2d 226, lv dismissed *19789 NY2d 916). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Andrais, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.