You are here: / / HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION...
, ,

HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE LAW OFFICE FAILURE WHICH RESULTED IN MISSING THE DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE DEMONSTRATION OF POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO ENFORCE THE PRECLUSION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s attorney offered a reasonable “law office failure” excuse for not complying with a discovery deadline (conditional order of preclusion):

“The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . “Conversely, where a claim of law office failure is conclusory and unsubstantiated or lacking in credibility, it should be rejected” … .

Here, in opposition to the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, in effect, to enforce the conditional order, the plaintiff’s counsel provided a detailed and credible explanation of the law office error that resulted in the failure to comply with the conditional order … . The plaintiff also demonstrated potentially meritorious causes of action … . Fortino v Wheels, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02393, Second Dept 4-13-22

​Practice Point: Here counsel offered a detailed, credible explanation for law office failure (failure to comply with a deadline for discovery). That explanation was coupled with the demonstration of potentially meritorious causes of action. Defendant’s motion to enforce the conditional preclusion order should not have been granted.

 

You might also like
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE (SECOND DEPT).
Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is the Municipality’s Timely Knowledge of the Essential Facts Underlying the Claim (Not Met Here)
A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DOORMAN OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER EITHER CPLR 5015 OR 317; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS; DEFENDANT ORIGINALLY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THEN ARGUED IN REPLY PAPERS IT HAD INTENDED TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
Although Plaintiff Limited Liability Company’s Articles of Incorporation Were Not Filed When It Took Title to Real Property—It May Have Validly Taken Title Pursuant to the “De Facto Corporation Doctrine”
DEFENDANT WAS NOT FREE TO LEAVE AFTER A STREET STOP AND WAS INTERROGATED WITHOUT HAVING BEEN AFFORDED THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (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

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS... ABSENT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT...