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.
COUNTY OF NASSAU, respondent, v. Donald J. CHMELA III, appellant, et al., defendants.
In a civil forfeiture action, the defendant Donald J. Chmela III appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered December 7, 2006, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the action as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c).
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Donald J. Chmela III which was to dismiss the action as abandoned is granted.
“When a plaintiff fails to seek leave to enter a default judgment within one year after the default has occurred, the action is deemed abandoned” (Kay Waterproofing Corp., v. Ray Realty Fulton, Inc., 23 A.D.3d 624, 625, 804 N.Y.S.2d 815; see CPLR 3215[c] ). “To avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned under such circumstances, a plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment, and must demonstrate that the complaint is meritorious” (Kay Waterproofing Corp. v. Ray Realty Fulton, Inc., 23 A.D.3d at 625, 804 N.Y.S.2d 815).
Here, the defendant Donald J. Chmela III (hereinafter the defendant) was in default as of March 14, 2005. However, the plaintiff offered no excuse for its failure to take any action in this matter until May 5, 2006, over 13 months later, when it contacted the defendant's former attorney in a related, but now concluded, criminal matter. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in finding there was a sufficient excuse and in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which sought to dismiss this matter as abandoned (see Costello v. Reilly, 36 A.D.3d 581, 828 N.Y.S.2d 172; Kay Waterproofing Corp. v. Ray Realty Fulton, Inc. 23 A.D.3d 624, 804 N.Y.S.2d 815; see generally Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725, 786 N.Y.S.2d 379, 819 N.E.2d 995; Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 652-654, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261, 814 N.E.2d 431).
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: November 20, 2007
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)