IN RE: R. Charles ROWND (2008)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: R. Charles ROWND, Petitioner-Respondent, v. The TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent-Appellant.

Decided: June 12, 2008

TOM, J.P., SAXE, FRIEDMAN, BUCKLEY, CATTERSON, JJ.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for appellant. McCormick Dunne & Foley, New York (Christopher P. Foley of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered June 1, 2007, which denied respondent's motion to vacate an October 2006 default judgment and remanded the matter to respondent for calculation and award of present and past benefits to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Not only did respondent's paralegal “misplace” both the Article 78 pleadings and the subsequent default judgment with notice of entry, but he twice provided false information as to the status of the case. Respondent presented no explanation for its failure to respond to numerous communications not addressed to the paralegal. The lack of a reasonable excuse for the default is sufficient by itself to mandate affirmance (see Matter of Saunders v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 213, 724 N.Y.S.2d 724 [2001] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network