You are here: / / MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED...

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and serve an amended answer should have been granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), a party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her default and a potentially meritorious claim or defense … . “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion” … . “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits”… . “[T]he court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse … where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . “While it is generally within the discretion of the court to determine what constitutes a reasonable excuse, reversal is warranted if that discretion is improvidently exercised” … .

Here, the affidavits and documentary evidence submitted by the defendant in support of his motion, taken together, set forth a detailed and credible explanation for the defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing and for any delay in moving to vacate his default … . In addition, there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff, and no evidence that the defendant willfully defaulted or otherwise intended to abandon his defense of this action … . Furthermore, the defendant’s submissions demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the complaint … . Gately v Drummond, 2018 NY Slip Op 03507, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Rare Example of Sufficiently Pled Cause of Action for Prima Facie Tort—Elements of Tortious Interference with a Contract Outlined
​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SECOND MOTION DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW OR AN ALLOWABLE SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE INJURED FIREFIGHTER BEGAN RECEIVING GENERAL MUNICIPLA LAW 207-a BENEFITS, THE CITY COULD NOT REQUIRE FIREFIGHTER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THOSE BENEFITS AND THEN DENY THEM.
IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE FACT THAT THE INTRUDER KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING, IN A PRE-MEDITATED, TARGETED ATTACK DID NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, INSULATE THE LANDLORD FROM LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN LOCK ON THE BUILDING’S EXTERIOR DOOR; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH A LINE OF 1ST DEPARTMENT CASES (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITHE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANKS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE WERE UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS THE RESULT OF DEFENDANT’S THREATS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO BE RELIEVED REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A... ARGUMENTS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY REJECTED (SECOND DEPT).