You are here: / / HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY REFUSED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN...
, , ,

HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY REFUSED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE; BUT THE SECOND DEPARTMENT VACATED THE $385,000 INQUEST-JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE EXTENT OF THE INJURIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court correctly denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment in a personal injury case because she failed to provide a reasonable excuse. Plaintiff alleged he stepped in a hole on defendant’s property, twisted his foot and fell. But the $385,000 damages judgment was vacated by the Second Department because plaintiff’s testimony at the inquest was deemed insufficient to demonstrate the extent of the injuries. A new inquest was ordered:

… [A]lthough this Court is not relieving the defendant of her default, “[a]n unwarranted and excessive award after inquest will not be sustained, as to do otherwise ‘would be tantamount to granting the plaintiffs an open season at the expense of a defaulting defendant'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s vague testimony at the inquest was insufficient to determine to what extent the plaintiff’s injuries were attributable to the subject accident and, therefore, whether the amount awarded was warranted. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the judgment, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages, and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter … . Albano v Roehrig, 2025 NY Slip Op 06839, Second Dept 12-10-25

Practice Point: Despite losing a motion to vacate a default judgment, a defendant may still successfully move to vacate a judgment awarded after an inquest on the ground the evidence offered at the inquest did not sufficiently demonstrate the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.

 

You might also like
HERE THE MARINA OWNER SERVED THE BOAT OWNER WITH A NOTICE OF SALE (FOR FAILURE TO PAY STORAGE FEES) BY MAIL; THE LIEN LAW REQUIRES AN INITIAL ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF SALE BEFORE RESORTING TO SERVICE BY MAIL; THE FAILURE TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE BEFORE SELLING THE BOAT VIOLATED THE LIEN LAW; THE SALE OF THE BOAT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED CONVERSION (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNION’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FROM A VILLAGE POLICE OFFICER’S PAYCHECK WAS A BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTION FOR WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN RUNNING ANEW FOR EACH PAYCHECK (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AND SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH RUNS FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR; HERE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PREIMPACT TERROR RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS UNTIMELY FOR THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE WAS NOT PRESENTED WITH ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT)
FOUR MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NECESSARY, PETITION TO ANNUL THAT DECISION WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S INJURIES, ANOTHER STUDENT, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY A DOG WHICH HAD BROKEN LOOSE, RAN INTO PLAINTIFF DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENTS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S DIVORCE WHICH REFERRED TO PLAINTIFF’S CONVICTION STEMMING FROM A BOILER ROOM PENNY STOCK OPERATION WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

WHEN THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK SPOKE TO THE JURORS ABOUT A JURY NOTE WHILE... REMITTAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE SORA RISK-LEVEL-ASSESSEMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED...