Key Takeaway
New York appellate court upholds dismissal when attorney calendared conference dates incorrectly twice, ruling repeated calendar errors don't constitute reasonable excuse.
Court Rejects “Two Strike” Pattern of Calendar Errors
When attorneys repeatedly make the same procedural mistake, courts lose patience quickly. A recent Third Department decision demonstrates that making identical calendar errors twice can doom any attempt to vacate a dismissal, regardless of other factors in the case.
The case involves a fundamental principle in New York civil practice: when a case gets dismissed for failure to appear, the moving party must show both a reasonable excuse for the absence and a potentially meritorious underlying claim. While proving merit might be straightforward, establishing a “reasonable excuse” requires more than simple human error—especially when that error becomes a pattern.
This decision aligns with other recent rulings where courts have scrutinized attorney conduct more closely. As we’ve seen in cases where default judgments face various challenges, the standard for excusing procedural failures continues to tighten.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Bank of N.Y. v Mohammed, 2015 NY Slip Op 06397 (3d Dept. 2015)
“We affirm. In order to vacate a dismissal pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see 9 Bros. Bldg. Supply Corp. v Buonamicia, 106 AD3d 968, 968 ; Biton v Turco, 88 AD3d 519 ). Here, the excuse proffered by plaintiff for failing to appear at the two conferences — that counsel calendared the conference on the wrong date — is not a reasonable excuse, especially in light of the fact that counsel committed the same error twice”
Key Takeaway
New York courts will not accept repeated calendar errors as reasonable excuses for missing court appearances. When an attorney makes the same procedural mistake twice—such as calendaring conferences on wrong dates—this pattern demonstrates inadequate office procedures rather than excusable oversight, making vacatur of dismissals extremely unlikely.
