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.
Florence FLADELL, plaintiff-appellant, v. AMERICAN RED MAGEN DAVID FOR ISRAEL, respondent, Hebrew Centre of Whitestone Beth Atfilloh, Inc., defendant-appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Florence Fladell and the defendant Hebrew Centre of Whitestone Beth Atfilloh, Inc., separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated November 9, 2006, which denied those branches of their separate motions which were for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant American Red Magen David For Israel upon its default in answering the complaint and cross claims, respectively, and granted the cross motion of the defendant American Red Magen David for Israel to vacate its default in answering the complaint and cross claims and to extend its time to serve an answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendant American Red Magen David for Israel.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering a complaint and cross claims must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense (see Grinberg v. Fahnestock & Co., 22 A.D.3d 801, 802 N.Y.S.2d 628; Fekete v. Camp Skwere, 16 A.D.3d 544, 545, 792 N.Y.S.2d 127). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion (see Santiago v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp, 10 A.D.3d 393, 394, 780 N.Y.S.2d 764; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568, 569, 657 N.Y.S.2d 66; Grutman v. Southgate at Bar Harbor Home Owners' Assn., 207 A.D.2d 526, 527, 616 N.Y.S.2d 68). In this case, American Red Magen David for Israel (hereinafter ARMDI) submitted an affidavit from its Comptroller, Ann Dorsky, who set forth a reasonable explanation for ARMDI's failure to timely serve an answer with a detailed discussion of the circumstances surrounding the default. Moreover, Dorsky's affidavit sufficiently set forth the existence of a possible meritorious defense. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting ARMDI's cross motion to vacate its default in answering the complaint and cross claims and to extend its time to serve an answer.
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 23, 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)