On November 30, 2022, the Second Department issued a decision in Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Parker, 2022 NY Slip Op. 06831, holding that marking a case off calendar for counsel’s failure to appear does not have the same legal effect as a default judgment, explaining:
A printout from the eCourts website indicates that the action was marked “dismissed” on January 23, 2019. In June 2019, referring to that printout, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for an order vacating the dismissal and restoring the action to the Court’s active Calendar. According to an affirmation submitted by Prince’s attorney in opposition to the motion, the matter had been placed on the calendar for the Non-Jury Trial Readiness Part on January 23, 2019. Plaintiff failed to appear, and this matter was dismissed. It is undisputed that no order dismissing the action was issued by the Supreme Court in connection with the plaintiff’s failure to appear on January 23, 2019.
. . .
When a plaintiff fails to appear at a scheduled conference or call of the calendar, the judge may note the default on the record and enter an order dismissing the action or such other order as appears just. When an order of dismissal is entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, the plaintiff may be relieved of its default only if it demonstrates a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious cause of action. Here, however, even if the entry in the eCourts website established that the Supreme Court noted the default on the record, the court did not enter an order, and thus, despite the eCourts notation, the action was not actually dismissed. Since the action was not dismissed, the plaintiff was entitled to have the action restored to the court’s calendar without regard to whether it had a reasonable excuse for failing to appear in court on January 23, 2019. Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, to restore the action to the court’s calendar was properly granted.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).