LINDO BODDEN, Appellant, v PENN-ATTRANSCO CORP., Respondent
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
800 NYS2d 129
Plaintiff commenced this action on December 13, 1995, seeking damages for an injury purportedly sustained on September 15, 1994. Plaintiff claims that he was operating a defective winch onboard a vessel upon which he was employed as a seaman. On June 21, 1999, the IAS court issued an order directing plaintiff to file a note of issue by September 24, 1999, or if no such note were filed, the parties were ordered to appear for a status conference on that date. The order further specified that failure to comply with its terms could result in the dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff failed to file the note of issue and neither party appeared on September 24. The court adjourned the conference to October 22, 1999. When the parties failed to appear on that date, the court dismissed the case pursuant to
“The dismissal of an action pursuant to
Defendant also failed to appear for any conferences on this case, and its argument that it will suffer prejudice if the case is reinstated is unpersuasive. The vessel in issue was scrapped the year this action was commenced, and the crew left the defendant’s employ at that time. Therefore, the crew was potentially unavailable and the evidence destroyed at approximately the same time as the action was commenced. Neither was a direct result of plaintiff’s delay. Indeed, defendant does not even indicate that it ever recognized that the case had been dismissed.
Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ. [See 1 Misc 3d 910(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 50021(U) (2004).]
