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.
GREEN APPLE MANAGEMENT CORP., appellant, v. John ARONIS, respondent, et al., defendant.
In an action to recover on a promissory note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated February 26, 2007, as granted those branches of the defendant John Aronis's motion which were to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered September 15, 2004, as was in favor of the plaintiff and against him, upon his default in responding to the motion and to compel the plaintiff to accept his answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To prevail on his motion to vacate his default, the defendant John Aronis was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Savino v. ABC Corp., 44 A.D.3d 1026, 845 N.Y.S.2d 789; SS Constantine & Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of Am. v. Z. Zindel, 44 A.D.3d 744, 843 N.Y.S.2d 414; White v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 41 A.D.3d 709, 710, 838 N.Y.S.2d 607). The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed if the record supports such determination (see Hodges v. Sidial, 48 A.D.3d 633, 634, 852 N.Y.S.2d 340; White v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 41 A.D.3d at 710, 838 N.Y.S.2d 607). In exercising this discretion the court may accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005; Vasquez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 51 A.D.3d 781, 859 N.Y.S.2d 195). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting Aronis's explanation for his default. Furthermore, Aronis demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Hodges v. Sidial, 48 A.D.3d at 634, 852 N.Y.S.2d 340).
We do not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention, as it is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Sarva v. Chakravorty, 34 A.D.3d 438, 439, 826 N.Y.S.2d 74).
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: October 14, 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)