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.
Arthur J. ROCK, Respondent, v. Jeffrey M. SCHWARTZ, Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for misconduct of a notary public pursuant to Executive Law § 135, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated December 11, 1996, which denied his motion to (1) vacate his default in appearing for trial, and (2) restore the action to the trial calendar.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568, 657 N.Y.S.2d 66). Although the court may, in its discretion, accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see, CPLR 2005; Putney v. Pearlman, 203 A.D.2d 333, 612 N.Y.S.2d 919); “ ‘a pattern of willful default and neglect’ should not be excused” (Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, supra, at 569, 657 N.Y.S.2d 66, quoting Gannon v. Johnson Scale Co., 189 A.D.2d 1052, 592 N.Y.S.2d 881). Here, the repeated failure of the defendant's attorney to appear in the Trial Assignment Part on scheduled trial dates demonstrates a pattern of willful neglect, which cannot be justified by his claim that he did not receive notices or legal documents addressed to him at his law firm. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate his default (see, Kyriacopoulos v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 216 A.D.2d 532, 628 N.Y.S.2d 769; Matter of United States Auto. Assn. v. Steiger, 191 A.D.2d 496, 594 N.Y.S.2d 336; Zapell v. Mecca, 190 A.D.2d 791, 593 N.Y.S.2d 841; Gannon v. Johnson Scale Co., supra).
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: November 24, 1997
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)