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
THE PETITIONER MAKING THE FOIL REQUEST IS A LAW FIRM; THE FACT THAT THE FIRM’S CLIENT ALSO HAD STANDING TO MAKE THE FOIL REQUEST DID NOT DEPRIVE THE LAW FIRM OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS WAIVED IF NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, IT MAY BE ADDED TO AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.
LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACTION, WHICH STEMMED FROM PLAINTIFF’S BEING DROPPED IN THE DELIVERY ROOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS OBTAINED A NEW JERSEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THREE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE; PLANTIFFS NEED ONLY SERVE ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE CONTRACT WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND PAROL EVIDENCE THEREFORE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE; THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, FOR WHICH PAROL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

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...