You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S EXCUSE WAS NOT REASONABLE; MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT...

DEFENDANT’S EXCUSE WAS NOT REASONABLE; MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment should not have been granted. The excuse was not reasonable:

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering a complaint must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1] …). Here, the defendant’s proffered excuse that its president failed to open and review the contents of a package following its personal delivery upon him, and that the summons and verified complaint may inadvertently have been discarded thereafter, were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default … . Elderco, Inc. v Kneski & Sons, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02766, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

You might also like
IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).
Not Enough Time Passed to Invoke Constructive Notice of Icy Condition Under “Storm Progress Rule”
ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
Failure to Comply with Service Method in Order to Show Cause Required Dismissal
JURY-NOTE ERROR REQUIRED REVERSAL; ALL INDICTMENT COUNTS WERE TAINTED BY THE JURY-NOTE ERROR; UNSWORN VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT OF WITNESS PROPERLY ALLOWED BECAUSE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE WITNESS’S UNAVAILABILITY.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE DANCE FLOOR IN THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MURDER SECOND COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (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

PROOF OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE... DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY...