You are here: / / LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND...
,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's (Expendables') opposition to a  motion for leave to enter and default judgment, alleging law office failure as the reason for failing to appear, was properly rejected:

In support of the proffered excuse of law office failure, the attorney for Expendables merely submitted an affirmation in which it was alleged that the corporate defendant had been “mistakenly omitted” from the answer served by one of the individual defendants. No factual detail or affidavit of personal knowledge was submitted explaining the drafting of the answer, the manner in which the purported omission occurred, or the failure to discover it until the plaintiffs moved for leave to enter a default judgment. Moreover, the answer served by the individual defendant bore no indicia that it was intended to serve as a joint answer for that defendant and Expendables. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the conclusory and unsubstantiated assertion of counsel failed to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default of Expendables in answering the complaint, and in granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment against that defendant … . Lefcort v Samowitz, 2018 NY Slip Op 06727, Second Dept 10-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Officer Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion Defendant Posed a Danger—Pat-Down Search Triggered by a Bulge In Defendant’s Waistband Was Not Justified Under the DeBour Test
RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION SUFFICIENTLY STATED THE TIME AND NATURE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGEDLY OCCURRING DURING FOSTER CARE MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO; THE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND THE MECHANICS AND PURPOSE OF THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT CONCISELY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT DESIGN, WHICH HAD A UNITY OF INTEREST WITH DEFENDANT EISENBACH, DESIGN’S CEO; THE PLAINTIFF HAD AGREED TO DISCONTINUE THE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST EISENBACH BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON EISENBACH’S BEHALF (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named Defendants Explained
THE INSTRUMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO PROBATE AS A LOST WILL (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Downward Departure in SORA Proceeding Explained

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

STATE WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS NEGLIGENT HIGHWAY DESIGN CASE,... INSURANCE AGENCY ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE INSURED WHICH RESULTED IN...