JFL MEDICAL CARE v. METLIFE AUTO HOME (2020)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.

JFL MEDICAL CARE, P.C., as Assignee of Henry, Richard, Appellant, v. METLIFE AUTO & HOME, Respondent.

2018-2042 K C

Decided: November 06, 2020

PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Fishkin & Associates, LLC (William Ross Van Tuyl of counsel), for respondent.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

A defendant seeking to open a default in appearing or answering the complaint based on an excusable default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the motion court (see Matter of Gambardella v. Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding that defendant had established a reasonable excuse for not timely answering the complaint. Further, defendant demonstrated that it had a potentially meritorious defense.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law