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
Motion to Vacate a Conviction Can Be Based Upon a Freestanding Claim of Actual Innocence—All Reliable Evidence, Even If Previously Barred at Trial or After Prior Motions to Vacate, May Be Presented at the Hearing
DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DEPRESSION OR HOLE PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO, AREA WAS COVERED WITH GRASS AND APPEARED TO BE LEVEL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS TO THE UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION (USTA) ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S BULLYING OF HER SON AT JUNIOR TOURNAMENTS WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; ANY STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FALSE WERE NOT MOTIVATED BY MALICE; THE DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT FROM A SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; PROOF OF SERIOUS INJURY RE: THE ASSAULT CHARGE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORIGINAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE FATHER RESIDES; FATHER’S NEW YORK CHILD SUPPORT PETITION WAS ACTUALLY SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ORDER; NEW YORK THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
AN “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A DEFENDANT HAS DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAN A “GOOD CAUSE” EXTENSION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Right to Call and Question Witnesses.

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...