You are here: / / Law Office Failure Justified Vacation of Default Judgment
,

Law Office Failure Justified Vacation of Default Judgment

The Second Department found the evidence in the motion to vacate a default was sufficient: “Here, the moving defendants’ claim of law office failure was supported by a ‘detailed and credible’ explanation of the default.  Moreover, the moving defendants demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating their default in opposing the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.”  Properties, LLC v McDonald, LLC, et al, 2011-11434, 2012-04529, Index No 14525/09, 2nd Dept. 3-6-13

 

You might also like
Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE BANK’S LETTER DE-ACCELERATING THE DEBT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE LOST ITS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) STATUS HAD DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS NOT FAILED TO FILE AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL AND REQUEST A HEARING WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (A) (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AT JFK AIRPORT, OWNED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ, BY A FORKLIFT WHICH WAS BACKING UP; THE FACT THAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS WERE OPTIONAL WAS NOT A DESIGN DEFECT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE ACTION ALLEGING FAILURE TO INSPECT THE FORKLIFT, CRITERIA EXLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
“General Supervisory Authority” Over Work Not Sufficient to Impose Liability Under the Labor Law
FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY IS NOTIFIED OF THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATION, NOT WHEN PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Service Upon Employee Did Not Confer Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporation 10-Year-Old Plaintiff’s Testimony Should Have Been Considered—No Need...