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.
Spyridon KOUZIOS, et al., respondents, v. Meir David DERY, appellant.
In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), dated February 28, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability upon the defendant's failure to answer and to set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability upon the defendant's failure to answer and to set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages. To successfully oppose the plaintiffs' motion, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Giovanelli v. Rivera, 23 A.D.3d 616, 804 N.Y.S.2d 817; Mjahdi v. Maguire, 21 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 802 N.Y.S.2d 700; Thompson v. Steuben Realty Corp., 18 A.D.3d 864, 865, 795 N.Y.S.2d 470; Dinstber v. Fludd, 2 A.D.3d 670, 671, 768 N.Y.S.2d 633). Although a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), the defendant's conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure did not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v. Holder, 31 A.D.3d 636, 637, 817 N.Y.S.2d 916; McClaren v. Bell Atl., 30 A.D.3d 569, 817 N.Y.S.2d 395; Matter of Denton v. City of Mount Vernon, 30 A.D.3d 600, 601, 817 N.Y.S.2d 140; Solomon v. Ramlall, 18 A.D.3d 461, 795 N.Y.S.2d 76). Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendant's further claim that he assumed that he did not need to answer the complaint because of purported settlement negotiations (see Antoine v. Bee, 26 A.D.3d 306, 812 N.Y.S.2d 557; Majestic Clothing Inc. v. East Coast Stor., LLC, 18 A.D.3d 516, 518, 795 N.Y.S.2d 289). Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.
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.
Decided: December 30, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)