Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CORNWALL WAREHOUSING, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jonathan C. LERNER, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Victoria St. George, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2017, which denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate an order, same court (Paul Wooten, J.), entered on or about November 13, 2015, granting, on default, defendants' motion to strike the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint reinstated.
Plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default (CPLR 5015[a][1] ), based on law office failure, as detailed in the affirmation of their former counsel who miscalendared the motion (CPLR 2005; People's United Bank v. Latini Tuxedo Mgt., LLC, 95 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 944 N.Y.S.2d 909 [2d Dept. 2012] ). Plaintiffs then moved to vacate the order entered on their default, showing that they had a meritorious defense to the underlying motion to strike their complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 ©, since they were not in default of any disclosure order (see John Quealy Irrevocable Life Ins. Trust v. AXA Equit. Life Ins. Co., 151 A.D.3d 592, 593, 58 N.Y.S.3d 26 [1st Dept. 2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1091, 69 N.Y.S.3d 859, 92 N.E.3d 1249 [2018]; DaimlerChrysler Ins. Co. v. Seck, 82 A.D.3d 581, 582, 919 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Plaintiffs also demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action by providing the affidavit of their president setting forth the basis of their legal malpractice claim (see Cheri Rest., Inc. v. Eoche, 144 A.D.3d 578, 579–580, 42 N.Y.S.3d 113 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
In light of the strong public policy of this State to dispose of cases on their merits, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate the order entered on default (DaimlerChrysler Ins. Co. v. Seck, 82 A.D.3d at 582, 919 N.Y.S.2d 20; see Chelli v. Kelly Group, P.C., 63 A.D.3d 632, 883 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 2009] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 8994
Decided: April 16, 2019
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)