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.
SOUND SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Melvin Mansfield, Jr., appellant, v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, respondent.
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated December 8, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate a clerk's judgment of the same court entered June 16, 2005, upon its failure to appear or answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A party seeking to vacate a judgment entered on default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint and a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116). The defendant established a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving its answer by submitting an affidavit from its employee attesting to a clerical error regarding the delay in forwarding the summons and complaint to its attorney and in answering the complaint (see Triangle Transp. v. Markel Ins. Co., 18 A.D.3d 229, 794 N.Y.S.2d 363; Burgos v. Allcity Ins. Co., 272 A.D.2d 195, 707 N.Y.S.2d 438). Moreover, that affidavit established that the default was not willful or deliberate, and there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff (see Gaylord v. Serafino, 274 A.D.2d 547, 715 N.Y.S.2d 854; Murphy v. D.V. Waste Control Corp., 124 A.D.2d 573, 507 N.Y.S.2d 717; Foglia v. Fashion Floors, 79 A.D.2d 598, 433 N.Y.S.2d 506). Furthermore, the defendant made a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Country Wide Ins. Co., 24 A.D.3d 748, 809 N.Y.S.2d 88, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 702, 818 N.Y.S.2d 192, 850 N.E.2d 1167; 65 N. 8 St. HDFC v. Suarez, 18 A.D.3d 732, 795 N.Y.S.2d 724; Anamdi v. Anugo, 229 A.D.2d 408, 644 N.Y.S.2d 804). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the clerk's judgment entered against it upon its failure to appear or answer (see Harcztark v. Drive Variety, 21 A.D.3d 876, 800 N.Y.S.2d 613).
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: July 25, 2006
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)