You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN HER FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE SUMMONS...

DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN HER FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WHICH WERE MAILED TWICE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted. Defendant, Cupid, alleged she was on vacation and did not learn of the action until the motion for a default judgment. The Second Department concluded Cupid may have adequately explained why she did not see the summons and complaint affixed to her door, but  failed to explain why she did not receive the summons and complaint by mail:

Cupid claimed that her denial of receipt was not bare and conclusory, based upon evidence that she was away on vacation when the summons and complaint were left at her door pursuant to CPLR 308(4). However, even assuming that that explanation was sufficient for her alleged failure to receive the summons and complaint left at her door, Cupid did not explain why she did not receive notice by mail—which was effected twice. The bare conclusory denial of receipt was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default, or lack of notice of the action … . In light of that determination, it is not necessary to determine whether Cupid demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense for purposes of either CPLR 5015(a)(1) or 317 … . Gray v Goodluck-Hedge, 2022 NY Slip Op 05204, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: Conclusory allegations the summons and complaint were not received by the defendant will not support the vacation of a default judgment. Here defendant may have explained why she did not see the summons and complaint affixed to her door, but failed to address the fact that the summons and complaint were mailed to her twice.

 

You might also like
COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF.
FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.
THE ADULT SURVIVORS ACT, CPLR SECTION 214-J, REVIVES AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED ACTION COMMENCED IN 2005 AND DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN 2009 (SECOND DEPT
PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
Insurer Not Estopped from Disclaiming Coverage Four Years After the Claim—No Prejudice to Insured and Disclaimer Supported by Policy Exclusion
Burdens of Proof Re: Collateral Estoppel Explained
STUDENT INJURED HORSING AROUND IN GYM CLASS, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (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

THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DID NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE... WHERE NEITHER PARENT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN FOR THE MAJORITY...