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.
Donna A. VLACHOS, respondent, v. Phyllis L. SAUERACKER, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 5, 2003, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated July 19, 2003, which granted, on default, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order dated September 5, 2003, is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion to vacate is granted, the order dated July 19, 2003, is vacated, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.
In order to vacate a default, a defendant must establish both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense (see Westchester County Med. Ctr. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 283 A.D.2d 488, 724 N.Y.S.2d 879; Greene v. New York City Hous. Auth., 283 A.D.2d 458, 724 N.Y.S.2d 631). Here, the defendants established both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense.
A rear-end collision with a stopped automobile establishes a prima facie case of negligence which imposes a duty on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle to provide a non-negligent explanation to rebut the inference of negligence (see Gross v. Marc, 2 A.D.3d 681, 768 N.Y.S.2d 627; Hollis v. Kellog, 306 A.D.2d 244, 761 N.Y.S.2d 253; Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392, 638 N.Y.S.2d 110).
Here, the plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence. However, in opposition, the defendants provided a non-negligent explanation to rebut the inference of negligence. As such, and since a reasonable excuse was provided, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion to vacate. Furthermore, since there are issues of fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied.
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: September 20, 2004
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)