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.
Alberton Developers, Inc., appellant, v. All Trade Enterprises, Inc., et al., respondents.
Argued-May 20, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Shulman, J.), dated May 19, 2009, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate an order of the same court (Geller, J.), dated October 10, 2008, confirming a referee's report dated August 20, 2008, upon the plaintiff's default in appearing at trial and answering the counterclaims, directing the dismissal of the complaint, and granting leave to the defendants to enter judgment on their counterclaims in the sum of $369,801.
ORDERED that the order dated May 19, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.
Generally, a party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious claim (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Martins v. Yukhayev, 63 AD3d 697, 698; Cava Constr. Co., Inc. v. Gealtec Remodeling Corp., 58 AD3d 660, 661; Krisztin v. State of New York, 34 AD3d 753). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Rugieri v. Bannister, 7 NY3d 742, 744; Young Chen v. Ruihua Li, 67 AD3d 905, 906; Martins v. Yukhayev, 63 AD3d 698).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the subject motion. The plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default. Even were the court to accept the plaintiff's bare allegations of attorney neglect, while CPLR 2005 allows courts to excuse a default due to law office failure, “it was not the Legislature's intent to routinely excuse such defaults, and mere neglect will not be accepted as a reasonable excuse” (Ortega v. Bisogno & Meyerson, 38 AD3d 510, 511 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Heidari v First Advance Funding Corp., 55 AD3d 669, 670; Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 A.D.2d 553, 554; De Vito v. Marine Midland Bank, 100 A.D.2d 530, 531).
PRUDENTI, P.J., SKELOS, FLORIO and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2009-05134 (Index No. 8778 /01)
Decided: June 15, 2010
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)