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.
Craig McCLEAVER, Appellant, v. Mickey VanFOSSEN, et al., Respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 10, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the defendants' motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated March 5, 1999, entered upon their default in answering the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the judgment dated March 5, 1999, in favor of the plaintiff is reinstated.
A defendant moving to vacate a judgment entered upon its default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default 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, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116; Domenikos v. Miranda, 255 A.D.2d 481, 680 N.Y.S.2d 643; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568, 657 N.Y.S.2d 66). The defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in appearing.
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505(5) requires that every motor vehicle licensee notify the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of any change of residence within 10 days of the occurrence of the change. A party who fails to comply with this provision is estopped from challenging the propriety of service made to the former address (see, Pumarejo-Garcia v. McDonough, 242 A.D.2d 374, 662 N.Y.S.2d 66; Burke v. Zorba Diner, 213 A.D.2d 577, 623 N.Y.S.2d 932; Sherrill v. Pettiford, 172 A.D.2d 512, 567 N.Y.S.2d 859). After the instant motor vehicle accident took place in Rockland County, but before the commencement of this action, the defendants moved from New York to the State of Washington, without giving notice of their change of address as required by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendants are therefore estopped from contesting the validity of service to their former address (see, Sherrill v. Pettiford, supra; Anello v. Barry, 149 A.D.2d 640, 540 N.Y.S.2d 460; cf., Keane v. Kamin, 94 N.Y.2d 263, 701 N.Y.S.2d 698, 723 N.E.2d 553).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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 16, 2000
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)