Category: CPLR R. 5015

5015

Shmuklyer v Feintuch Communications, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00908 [1st Dept. 2018]

"A defendant seeking to vacate a default under [CPLR 5015(a)] must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint and a meritorious defense to the action" (Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A. C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Moreover, "section 5015(a) does not provide an exhaustive list as to when a default judgment may be vacated. Indeed, the drafters of that provision intended that courts retain and exercise their inherent discretionary power in situations that warranted vacatur but which the drafters could not easily foresee" (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in finding that defendant presented a reasonable excuse, based on counsel's family crises, the particulars of which were explained in defendant's papers, occurring at the time the answer was due. It is noteworthy too that plaintiff's counsel, who had communicated several times with defendant's counsel, and which communications made it clear that defense counsel was unaware of the pending default motion, chose to remain silent, thereby contributing to defendant's default in opposing it. Additionally, contrary to plaintiff's argument, the record does not support any finding of willful delay or neglect. Plaintiff has also waived any appellate review of defendant's meritorious defense, by failing to make any mention of such defense until plaintiff's reply brief (see Ginsberg v Rudey, 280 AD2d 267 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 711 [2001]; Blech v West Park Presbyt. Church, 102 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2013]). In any event, defendant demonstrated a sufficient a meritorious defense to the court below.

CPLR 2001 [must be merely technical]; CPLR 5015(a)(4)

CPLR 2001

CPLR 5015(a)(4)

Segway of N.Y., Inc. v Udit Group, Inc., 2014 NY Slip Op 05971 [2nd Dept. 2014]

However, the Supreme Court erred in applying CPLR 2001 so as to disregard the facial defects in the summons and notice of motion that were identified by the defendants. That section "may be used to cure only a technical infirmity'" (Ruffin v Lion Corp., 15 NY3d 578, 582, quoting Matter of Miller v Board of Assessors, 91 NY2d 82, 87). "In deciding whether a defect in service is merely technical, courts must be guided by the principle of notice to the defendant—notice that must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections" (Ruffin v Lion Corp., 15 NY3d at 582 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Where a defect creates a "greater possibility" of frustrating the core principles of notice to the defendant, the defect must be regarded as substantial and courts may not disregard it under CPLR 2001 (id. at 583; see Brown v State of New York, 114 AD3d 632, 633).

Here, the notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint did not provide timely notice of the motion to the defendant Andrew Udit, who was served by substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308(2), inasmuch as the notice of motion set a return date that was prior to the expiration of the 30-day period within which that defendant was statutorily entitled to appear (see CPLR 320[a]; 3213). Furthermore, the copies of the notice of motion served upon the defendants with the summons pursuant to CPLR 3213 contained an affirmative misstatement of the address at which the motion could be defended (cf. CPLR 2214[a]). We deem it appropriate to take judicial notice (see Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v Public Serv. Commn. of State of N.Y., 47 NY2d 94, 110, revd on other grounds, 447 US 530 and revd sub nom. on other grounds Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v Public Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 US 557; Appelbaum v Deutsch, 111 AD2d 21, 22, affd 66 NY2d 975; Dougherty v 425 Dev. Assoc., 93 AD2d 438, 447; see also Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence §§ 2-202, 2-203 [Farrell 2008]) of the fact that the incorrect address given in the notice of motion pertained to an actual roadway located in Mineola, New York, and was not merely a misspelling of the correct address for the relevant courthouse. As such, the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint was made returnable to a location in Mineola at which the Supreme Court was not located, and at which the motion could not have been opposed. These defects in the notice of motion, under the particular circumstances of this case and in the context of an action commenced pursuant to CPLR 3213, created a greater possibility of frustrating the core principles of notice to the defendants (see Ruffin v Lion Corp., 15 NY3d at 583; Brown v State of New York, 114 AD3d at 633). Accordingly, these defects constitute "jurisdictional defect[s] that courts may not overlook" pursuant to CPLR 2001 (Ruffin v Lion Corp., 15 NY3d at 582; see Matter of Cartier v County of Nassau, 281 AD2d 477, 478; Matter of Hawkins v McCall, 278 AD2d 638, 638; Matter of Lincoln Plaza Tenants Corp. v Dinkins, 171 AD2d 577, 577; Matter of Common Council of City of Gloversville v Town Bd. of Johnstown, 144 AD2d 90, 92). Since the Supreme Court failed to acquire personal jurisdiction, "all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void" (Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Westervelt, 105 AD3d 896, 897 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and the default judgment entered against the defendants is "a nullity" (Prudence v Wright, 94 AD3d 1073, 1074; see Krisilas v Mount Sinai Hosp., 63 AD3d 887, 889; Harkless v Reid, 23 AD3d 622, 623; Steele v Hempstead Pub Taxi, 305 AD2d 401, 402).

Accordingly, the defendants' motion to vacate the judgment dated January 13, 2012, and thereupon to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, should have been granted (see CPLR 5015[a][4]).

CPLR 5015(a)(4) and a stipulation

CPLR 5015(a)(4)

Macaluso v Macaluso, 2014 NY Slip Op 06064 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Where there is no legal or equitable basis to enter a judgment against a particular party, such judgment must be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) (see Mazelier v 634 W. 135, LLC, 22 AD3d 361, 364). Here, however, the judgment entered October 20, 2010, was properly issued, pursuant to an order dated June 18, 2010, against the plaintiff individually, as a remedy for the plaintiff's failure to comply with his personal obligations under the parties' stipulation of settlement. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, while he may have commenced this action "in the right of S & M Heating Corp.," the record is clear that the corporation was not a party to the stipulation. Rather, the agreement, which was placed on the record in open court, provided that the plaintiff would discontinue the action and would receive certain benefits from, and undertake certain obligations to, his late brother, Santo F. Macaluso, Jr. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment.

 

CPLR 3211(e) + alleged lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect

CPLR 3211(e)
CPLR 5015

JP Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v Hayles, 2014 NY Slip Op 00485 [2nd Dept. 2015]

Hayles contends that the action should be dismissed insofar as asserted against her for lack of standing because the plaintiff was not the holder of the underlying note and mortgage when it commenced the action (see Homecomings Fin., LLC v Guldi, 108 AD3d 506, 507; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279). The Supreme Court properly rejected this claim because Hayles waived it by failing to challenge the plaintiff's standing in her answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hussain, 78 AD3d 989, 990; see also CPLR 3211[e]; CitiMortgage, Inc. v Rosenthal, 88 AD3d 759, 761).

A defendant seeking to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action [*2](see Wells Fargo Bank v Malave, 107 AD3d 880). As Hayles failed to demonstrate any potentially meritorious defense to the foreclosure action or a reasonable excuse for her default in opposing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hussain, 78 AD3d at 990).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Hayles' motion which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) and (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. In this regard, the record contains no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, and an alleged lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Tate, 102 AD3d 859, 860; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hunter, 100 AD3d 810, 811).

Bold is mine.

Interesting CPLR 5015(a)(4)

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order
(a) On motion
(4) lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order

Pavlou v Associates Food Stores, Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 04982 (2nd Dept. 2012)

In an order entered April 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, sua sponte, dismissed this action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 on the ground that the plaintiffs failed "to proceed as directed by the court" when they did not appear on a scheduled court date. The plaintiffs demonstrated that they did not have notice of the trial calendar call of the action through the uncontroverted affidavit of their attorney, which stated that counsel did not receive any notice for a court appearance (see M.S. Hi-Tech, Inc. v Thompson, 23 AD3d 442, 443). Without notice of the court appearance, the plaintiffs' default was a nullity, as was the remedy imposed by the Supreme Court as a consequence (see CPLR 5015[a][4]; Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 78 AD3d 630, 632; Tragni v Tragni, 21 AD3d 1084, 1085; Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d 375, 376). In this situation, vacatur of the default was required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious cause of action was required (see Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 78 AD3d at 632; Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d at 376; Kumer v Passafiume, 258 AD2d 625, 626). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, to vacate the order entered April 21, 2010, sua sponte, dismissing the action, and to restore the action to the trial calendar should have been granted.

4404(b) and 5015(a)(2) newly discovered evidence

CPLR  R. 4404 Post-trial motion for judgment and new trial

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order

Da Silva v Savo, 2012 NY Slip Op 05383 (2nd Dept. 2012)

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(b), after a trial not triable as of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may set aside its decision and issue a new decision based on, inter alia, newly-discovered evidence (see Matter of Torregroza v Gomez, 85 AD3d 932, 933; Stambaugh v Stambaugh, 226 AD2d 363; Grossbaum v Dil-Hill Realty Corp., 58 AD2d 593, 594). Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), "[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person with such notice as the court may direct, upon the ground of: . . . 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a different result and which could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under section 4404." In order for relief to be granted under CPLR 4404(b) or 5015(a)(2) based on newly-discovered evidence, the movant must show that it could not have previously discovered the evidence (see Matter of Torregroza v Gomez, 85 AD3d at 933; Stambaugh v Stambaugh, 226 AD2d at 363), and that the new evidence is in admissible form (see Sofio v Hughes, 148 AD2d 439, 440).

Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was to set aside so much of its decision after trial as determined that the plaintiff was entitled  to an award of damages in the principal sum of $125,000 for undistributed profits. The defendants failed to show that they could not have previously discovered the documents that were submitted in support of their motion. Further, those documents were incomplete and consisted of hearsay, and thus were not in admissible form. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in setting aside the $125,000 damages award for undistributed profits based on the documents submitted in support of the defendants' motion (see Stambaugh v Stambaugh, 226 AD2d at 363; see also Sofio v Hughes, 148 AD2d at 440-441).

 

5015(a)(1)(4)

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order
(a) On motion
(1) excusable default…
(2) newly-discovered evidence…
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party
(4) lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order
(5) reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based

Mr. Ho Charter Serv., Inc. v Ho, 2012 NY Slip Op 03102 (1st Dept., 2012)

The order entered on or about August 1, 2011 is nonappealable, as it was entered on default within the meaning of CPLR 5511 (see Armin A. Meizlik Co. Inc. v L & K Jewelry Inc., 68 AD3d 530, 531 [2009]).

The motion to vacate the order entered on or about August 1, 2011 should have been granted, as defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for failing to appear at a preliminary conference (see Armin, 68 AD3d at 531; CPLR 5015[a][1]). Defendant showed that his failure to appear was neither willful nor a pattern of dilatory behavior, but was simply the result of illness and inadvertent law office failure. Indeed, defendant submitted affirmations by his attorneys stating that they failed to note the scheduled preliminary conference date set forth in two prior orders, that the primary attorney assigned to the case was sick and unable to attend the scheduled conference, and that a substitute attorney from the same law office had advised the court that she would not be able to arrive to the conference by the scheduled time (see Armin, 68 AD3d at 531; Chelli v Kelly Group, P.C., 63 AD3d 632 [2009]). 

Plaintiff's corporate records and the affidavits based on personal knowledge submitted by the parties, together with prior orders of the court that evaluated the evidence and denied plaintiff injunctive relief, demonstrate merit to the defense.

Feldman v Delaney, 2012 NY Slip Op 03133 (2nd Dept., 2012)

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff Tuvia Feldman appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered April 15, 2011, which denied his motion (1) to vacate an order of the same court dated December 21, 2009, granting the application of the defendants Veronica B. Delaney, Nephrology Associates of Westchester, and Praveen Chander pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants upon his failure to proceed with the trial, and (2) to restore the action to the trial calendar.

ORDERED that the order entered April 15, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant's motion, inter alia, to vacate an order dated December 21, 2009, granting the application of the defendants Veronica B. Delaney, Nephrology Associates of Westchester, and Praveen Chander pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, was properly denied, as it was not made within one year after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Wold v City of New York, 85 AD3d 776, 777; Valentin v City of New York, 73 AD3d 755, 756; Cazeau v Paul, 2 AD3d 477, 478; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 197). Furthermore, the one-year time period should not be extended in the exercise of discretion, since the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his lengthy delay in moving, among other things, to vacate the order dated December 21, 2009 (see Valentin v City of New York, 73 AD3d at 756; Leinas v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 72 AD3d 905, 906; Carter v City of New York, 231 AD2d 485, 486). In any event, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to proceed with the trial and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Schmitt v Jeyalingam, 71 AD3d 757; Nowell v NYU Med. Ctr., 55 AD3d 573, 574; Santiago v Santana, 54 AD3d 929, 930; Bollino v Hitzig, 34 AD3d 711).

Prudence v Wright, 2012 NY Slip Op 03157 (2nd Dept., 2012)

Where, as here, a defendant moves to vacate a judgment entered upon his or her default in appearing or answering the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, the defendant is not required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Harkless v Reid, 23 AD3d 622, 622-623; Steele v Hempstead Pub Taxi, 305 AD2d 401, 402). Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendant established entitlement to relief from default on the ground that she was not properly served with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(4). The affidavit of service of the plaintiff's process server alleged that the process server attempted to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at her "dwelling house" or "usual place of abode," rather than her actual place of business, on January 19, 2009, at 7:17 P.M., January 26, 2009, at 6:51 A.M., and February 25, 2009, at 4:03 P.M. After all three unsuccessful attempts, the process server affixed a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant's door and mailed a copy to the same address, which was alleged to be the defendant's "last known residence." Contrary to these averments in the affidavit of service, the defendant presented proof, inter alia, that the address where service was attempted, as alleged in the affidavit of service, was in fact her office address.

The defendant established that the plaintiff's process server failed to exercise "due diligence" in attempting to effectuate service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) before using the "affix and mail" method pursuant to CPLR 308(4) (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Iancu Pizza, Ltd., 78 AD3d 902, 903 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lombay v Padilla, 70 AD3d 1010, 1012). [*2]Due diligence was not exercised because two of the three attempts at service were at times when the defendant could not reasonably be expected to be at work, a national holiday (January 19, 2009) and at 6:51 A.M. on January 26, 2009 (see Krisilas v Mount Sinai Hosp., 63 AD3d 887, 889; O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 630; Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d 353; Annis v Long, 298 AD2d 340). Furthermore, no attempt to effectuate service was made at the defendant's actual "dwelling place or usual place of abode" (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Iancu Pizza, Ltd., 78 AD3d at 903 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d at 353), nor did the process server make genuine inquiries to ascertain the defendant's actual residence or place of employment (see McSorley v Spear, 50 AD3d 652, 654; Estate of Edward S. Waterman v Jones, 46 AD3d 63, 66).

Under these circumstances, the service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(4) was defective as a matter of law (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Iancu Pizza, Ltd., 78 AD3d at 903; Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d at 354; Gurevitch v Goodman, 269 AD2d 355, 356). Since the Supreme Court had not acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the default judgment entered against her was a nullity (see Fleisher v Kaba, 78 AD3d 1118, 1120; Steele v Hempstead Pub Taxi, 305 AD2d at 402). Accordingly, the defendant's motion, in effect, to vacate the judgment entered upon her default and to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted.

We note that the action was timely commenced by filing the summons and complaint in the office of the Clerk of Kings County. Under the circumstances of this case, despite the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff should be permitted, if she be so advised, to re-serve the appellant within 120 days of the date of this decision and order (see CPLR 306-b; Gurevitch v Goodman, 269 AD2d at 356).

Rocco v Family Foot Ctr., 2012 NY Slip Op 03161 (2nd Dept., 2012)

Almost a year later, on April 20, 2010, Lombardi served the plaintiff with a copy of the order entered May 22, 2009, with notice of entry. The plaintiff was unaware that the complaint had been dismissed until she received the notice of entry of the order. The plaintiff then moved by notice of motion dated May 14, 2010, (a) pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the order entered May 22, 2009, (b) to restore the action to the trial calendar, and (c) pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel Zawada to appear for a deposition. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals, and we reverse.

In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see Thapt v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 89 AD3d 837, 837; Bazoyah v Herschitz, 79 AD3d 1081, 1081; Raciti v Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 AD3d 1014; Montague v Rivera, 50 AD3d 656, 657; St. Rose v McMorrow, 43 AD3d 1146). Here, the plaintiff established that her failure to oppose Zawada's motion was neither willful nor deliberate (see Raciti v Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 AD3d 1014; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389; Franco Belli Plumbing & Heating & Sons, Inc. v Imperial Dev. & Constr. Corp., 45 AD3d 634). Her attorney's affirmation established that the failure of the attorney's firm to diary the return date of Zawada's motion was inadvertent and an isolated incident.

The plaintiff also established that her opposition to Zawada's motion was potentially meritorious. In opposition to a motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, the plaintiff must "demonstrate a [potentially] meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, and a lack of intent to abandon the action, and that the defendant[] would not be prejudiced by the delay" (Botsas v Grossman, 51 AD3d 617, 617). Here, the plaintiff demonstrated through the affidavit of her expert that she had a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Kahgan v Alwi, 67 AD3d 742; Rodriguez v United Parcel Serv., Inc. of Ohio, 17 AD3d 658, 658; Sanchez v Denkberg, 284 AD2d 446). The plaintiff also demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her delay in moving to restore the action to the trial calendar and her lack of intent to abandon the action through her attorney's affirmation and exhibits presented on the motion and in reply, which showed that her attorney had been diligently attempting to schedule the depositions, but was unable to do so as of the date of Zawada's motion (see Kahgan v Alwi, 67 AD3d 742; Rodriguez v United Parcel Serv., Inc. of Ohio, 17 AD3d at 658; Sanchez v Denkberg, 284 AD2d 446). In addition, the plaintiff demonstrated that Zawada and Lombardi would not suffer any prejudice if the action was restored to the trial calendar (see Kahgan v Alwi, 67 AD3d 742; Rodriguez v United Parcel Serv., Inc. of Ohio, 17 AD3d at 658; Sanchez v Denkberg, 284 AD2d 446). The plaintiff also acted promptly to cure her default upon learning of it (see Raciti v Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 AD3d at 1014). [*3]

In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff established that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying those branches of her motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the order entered May 22, 2009, and to restore the action to the trial calendar (see Kahgan v Alwi, 67 AD3d 742). The Supreme Court also improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel Zawada to appear for a deposition before trial given Zawada's failure to comply with prior court orders (see CPLR 3124).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion, and thereupon denied Zawada's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to schedule depositions.

5015 and Defaults

Pichardo-Garcia v Josephine's Spa Corp., 2012 NY Slip Op 00004 (1st Dept., 2012)

In the absence of a determination by the motion court, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), of the reasonableness of plaintiff's proffered excuse for her failure to appear at a scheduled compliance conference, we reject the claim of law office failure as "conclusory and perfunctory" (see Perez v New York City Hous. Auth., 47 AD3d 505, 505 [2008]). Counsel explained that the failure to appear was due to a conflict between scheduled appearances in this action and in an unrelated action. However, he did not state that he took any steps to resolve or alleviate the conflict or that he was unaware of the conflict. Counsel's "overbooking of cases and inability to keep track of his appearances" does not constitute a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear (id.; see also Youni Gems Corp. v Bassco Creations Inc., 70 AD3d 454, 455 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 863 [2010]). Moreover, plaintiff made no attempt to vacate the default until almost a year after being served with the notice of its entry (see Youni, 70 AD3d at 455).

Kohn v Tri-State Hardwoods, Ltd., 2012 NY Slip Op 00933 (2nd Dept., 2012)

It is undisputed that the plaintiff defaulted in serving a reply to the appellant's counterclaim and that the appellant failed to move for leave to enter a default judgment on the counterclaim within one year after the default. Since the appellant failed to make a timely motion for leave to enter a default judgment, it was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment and a potentially meritorious claim (see Giglio v NTIMP, Inc., 86 AD3d 301, 308; Costello v Reilly, 36 AD3d 581; Iorizzo v Mattikow, 25 AD3d 762, 763; Oparaji v Madison Queens-Guy Brewer, 293 AD2d 591, 592). The appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay of over two years after the one-year statutory time period had expired (see Butindaro v Grinberg, 57 AD3d 932, 933; Mattera v Capric, 54 AD3d 827, 828; Lugauer v Forest City Ratner Co., 44 AD3d 829, 830; Opia v Chukwu, 278 AD2d 394). Accordingly, the appellant's motion for leave to enter a default judgment on the counterclaim was properly denied.

2261 Palmer Ave. Corp. v Malick, 2012 NY Slip Op 00506 (2nd Dept., 2012)

In order to vacate her default in appearing or answering the complaint, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Bank of Am. v Faracco, 89 AD3d 879; Community Preserv. Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 AD3d 784; see also Swensen v MV Transp., Inc., 89 AD3d 924). Even if the defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her default, our review of the record establishes that she failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action. The papers submitted in support of her cross motion, inter alia, to vacate her default in appearing or answering the compalint were replete with self-serving, vague, and unsubstantiated denials and unsupported legal conclusions as to whether a potentially meritorious defense to the action existed, and were thus an insufficient basis for vacating her default (see Thapt v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 89 AD3d 837; Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v Raven Brands, Inc., 82 AD3d 1041).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment, and properly denied that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to vacate her default in appearing or answering the complaint.

Toll Bros., Inc. v Dorsch, 2012 NY Slip Op 00359 (2nd Dept., 2012)

"A defendant seeking to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action" (Clover M. Barrett, P.C. v Gordon,AD3d, 2011 NY Slip Op 09581, *1 [2d Dept 2011]; see Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 AD3d 628). "Other factors which the court should consider include whether the default prejudiced the opposing party, whether it was willful or evinced an intent to abandon the litigation, and whether vacating the default would serve the strong public policy of resolving cases on their merits when possible" (Dimitriadis v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 84 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151; see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Dick, 67 AD3d 900, 902; Moore v Day, 55 AD3d 803, 804).

Here, the defendant established both a reasonable excuse for the default, and the [*2]existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Further, there was no showing by the plaintiff that it was prejudiced by the default or that the default was willful, and public policy favors the resolution of cases on their merits (see Dimitriadis v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 84 AD3d at 1151; Moore v Day, 55 AD3d at 805; Li Gang Ma v Hong Guang Hu, 54 AD3d 312, 313; Ahmad v Aniolowiski, 28 AD3d 692, 693). Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate his default.

Procedural cornucopia and 5015

CPLR R. 5015

CPLR § 5501

Pollak v Moore, 2011 NY Slip Op 05351 (1st Dept. 2011)

Plaintiff's appeal from the judgment does not bring up for review an order of the motion court, entered November 20, 2009 (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), which was marked "final disposition" and, in fact, disposed of all of plaintiff's claims, leaving nothing further in the action that would require non-ministerial judicial action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Burke v Crosson, 85 NY2d 10 [1995]). While the judgment explicitly referred to the November 20, 2009 order, and such order "affected" the judgment, the November 20, 2009 order did not meet the further criterion that the underlying order sought to be reviewed on appeal from the judgment be "non-final" (see CPLR 5501[a][1]). Plaintiff abandoned his appeal from the November 20, 2009 order, and cannot revive that appeal by the expedient of effecting a ministerial entry of judgment upon the final order after expiration of the time to perfect the initial appeal. 

Assuming we were able to reach plaintiff's appellate arguments on the merits, we would find them unavailing. Plaintiff's initial argument that Justice Lowe's November 20, 2009 order was void as it was dated approximately two weeks after Justice Lowe had transferred the action to another IAS part, and such transfer was based on his recusing himself from the action, is unsupported by the record. A review of the relevant transfer orders indicates that the transfer of the action to Justice Walter Tolub, who was handling a related foreclosure proceeding, was done for judicial economy purposes. Moreover, it is noted that prior to the transfer, defendants' motion to dismiss was fully submitted and orally argued before Justice Lowe, and Justice Lowe informed the parties that he would render a decision on the motion (see generally Hudson View II Assoc. v Miller, 282 AD2d 345 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Zelman v Lipsig, 178 AD2d 298 [1991]). Plaintiff offers no evidence to indicate bias or impropriety in the rendering of the November 20, 2009 order (see generally Hudson View II Assoc., 282 AD2d 345). We find plaintiff's related due process arguments unavailing.

We find that plaintiff's breach of contract claim, which was predicated upon a purported agreement by defendants to sell plaintiff a portion of a lot (with improvements thereon) pending formal division of the lot on the New York City tax map, to be barred by the statute of frauds. The documentary evidence established that the purported agreement was not signed by all the parties to be charged (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[2]; Naldi v Grunberg, 80 AD3d 1 [2010], lv denied __ NY3d __, 2011 NY Slip Op 71494 [2011]), the sale terms were modified by plaintiff, and the parties had an opportunity to execute plaintiff's marked-up contract of sale, but did not elect to execute such agreement. To the extent plaintiff relies on other writings to argue that they demonstrate the parties to be charged agreed to the sale of a portion of a lot to plaintiff (see generally WWP Group USA v Interpublic Group of Cos., 228 AD2d 296 [1996]), we find that the writings do no more than reflect interest of the parties to be charged in effecting a sale of the portion of the property to plaintiff upon appropriate terms.Plaintiff's alternative claims sounding in breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation were duplicative of his breach of contract claims and, as such, properly dismissed (see J.E. Morgan Knitting Mills v Reeves Bros., 243 AD2d 422 [1997]; cf. Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 NY2d 954 [1986]). Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment was unsupported by evidence that defendants, whose interest in the property at stake was foreclosed against, were enriched at plaintiff's expense (see generally Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v State of New York, 30 NY2d 415 (1972), cert denied 414 US 829 [1973]; Weiner v Lazard Freres & Co., 241 AD2d 114, 119-120 [1998]).

Insofar as plaintiff requested leave to serve a second amended complaint, denial of such relief was a proper exercise of discretion as plaintiff failed to annex a copy of a proposed second amended pleading to his motion papers, and he did not otherwise offer an affidavit of merit or any "new" facts as would overcome the legal defects in his prior two complaints (see generally Jebran v LaSalle Bus. Credit, LLC, 33 AD3d 424 [2006]; Gonik v Israel Discount Bank of N.Y., 80 AD3d 437, 438-439 [2011]).

Kohn v Kohn, 2011 NY Slip Op 06095 (2nd Dept., 2011)

To vacate her default in opposing the plaintiff's motion, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious opposition (see Remote Meter Tech. of NY, Inc. v Aris Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 1030; Bazoyah v Herschitz, 79 AD3d 1081). A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Dimitriadis v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 84 AD3d 1150). The Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), where the claim of law office failure is supported by a "detailed and credible" explanation of the default (see Remote Meter Tech. of N.Y., Inc. v Aris Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 1030; Winthrop Univ. Hosp. v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 78 AD3d 685, 686). Here, the defendant's claim of law office failure was supported by a "detailed and credible" explanation of the default, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting that explanation. Moreover, the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the plaintiff's motion.

5015

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order
(a) On motion
(1) excusable default…
(2) newly-discovered evidence…
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party
(4) lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order
(5) reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

Dimitriadis v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 2011 NY Slip Op 04410 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Gerdes v Canales, 74 AD3d 1017; Scala v 4020 Jerusalem Owners, Inc., 72 AD3d 926, 927; Matter of Lee v Morgan, 67 AD3d 681, 682; Holt Constr. Corp. v J & R Music World, 294 AD2d 540). To obtain relief from a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Felsen v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC,AD3d, 2011 NY Slip Op 02840 [2d Dept 2011]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 80 AD3d 695, 696; Farrah v Pinos, 78 AD3d 1115; Francis v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 45 AD3d 529, 530). Other factors which the court should consider include whether the default prejudiced the opposing party, whether it was willful or evinced an intent to abandon the litigation, and whether vacating the default would serve the strong public policy of resolving cases on their merits when possible (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Dick, 67 AD3d 900, 902; Klughaupt v Hi-Tower Contrs., Inc., 64 AD3d 545, 546; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 AD3d 832, 832-833; Moore v Day, 55 AD3d 803, 804).

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to vacate its default. The defendant established a reasonable excuse for the default, and the affidavit of its expert demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the default or that the default was willful or part of a pattern of neglect, and the vacatur of the default advances the public policy of resolving actions on their merits (see e.g. Dorio v County of Suffolk, 58 AD3d 594, 595; Li Gang Ma v Hong Guang Hu, 54 AD3d 312, 313; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672, 673; Cooney v Cambridge Mgt. & Realty Corp., 35 AD3d 522, 523).

Assael v 15 Broad St., LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 03984 (App. DIv., 2nd 2011)

Upon the plaintiff's appeal, in a decision and order dated March 16, 2010, this Court determined that the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment should have been denied (see Assael v 15 Broad St., LLC, 71 AD3d 802). Following that appeal, the plaintiff sought to collect the proceeds of the subject bond. The defendant moved, inter alia, to discharge the subject bond, arguing that it had been issued as a condition of vacating the default judgment. The Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to discharge the subject bond. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

"A court which renders a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just'(CPLR 5015[a]), including the imposition of a bond or undertaking" (Doris v Lewis, 76 AD3d 536, 537; see Yadid, LLC v GCW Bell Corp., 48 AD3d 799, 800; Testwell Craig Labs. v Charles Assoc., 264 AD2d 836, 837). Here, the Supreme Court directed the defendant to post a bond "as a condition of vacatur" of the default judgment. However, upon this Court's decision and order dated March 16, 2010, determining that the defendant's motion to vacate the aforementioned default judgment should have been denied, the parties were, in effect, returned to the status quo ante, namely, that prior to the defendant's motion to vacate its default. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to discharge the subject bond.

Ogunmoyin v 1515 Broadway Fee Owner, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 05469 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

While law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of a court's sound discretion, the movant must submit supporting facts to explain and justify the default, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse (see Morrison v Rosenberg, 278 AD2d 392, 392; Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447, 447; De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530, 531).

Here, the plaintiff's proffered excuse of law office failure was vague and unsubstantiated and, thus, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the default (see Knowles v Schaeffer, 70 AD3d 897, 898; Chechen v Spencer, 68 AD3d 801, 802; Murray v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 52 AD3d 792, 793; St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v Blue Ridge Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 946, 947). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate so much of the order dated November 13, 2009, as was entered upon her default in opposing the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Star Indus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d 306; Matter of Hye-Young Chon v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 849).

Tribeca Lending Corp. v Bartlett, 2011 NY Slip Op 03896 (App. DIv., 1st 2011)

To the extent that defendant's motion to vacate can be construed as based on lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), the motion fails because defendant formally appeared in this action in June 2007 when he served an answer (see CPLR 320). The fact that an order was entered in January 2008
striking his answer does not vitiate defendant's formal appearance or divest the court of personal jurisdiction over him.

Stasiak v Forlenza, 2011 NY Slip Op 04448 (App. Div., 2nd 2011

The order dated January 12, 2009, granting the wife's unopposed motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the complaint, was rendered at a time when the proceedings were stayed pursuant to both the order dated January 8, 2009, and CPLR 321(c) (see Moray v Koven & Krause, Esqs., 15 NY3d 384, 388-390; Albert v Albert, 309 AD2d 884, 886; Chavoustie v Shaad, 133 AD2d 532). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in issuing the judgment entered March 2, 2009, upon the order dated January 12, 2009. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the husband's motion which was to vacate the judgment entered on March 2, 2009, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) in the interests of substantial justice (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68; Wade v Village of Whitehall, 46 AD3d 1302, 1303; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d 629, 630; Lane v Lane, 175 AD2d 103, 105).

The Supreme Court also erred in issuing the judgment entered July 8, 2009. At the time of the inquest, the wife had already been granted all of the relief she requested in the complaint, and the husband had no notice that the wife would be seeking an additional award far greater than that sought in the complaint. Moreover, the husband had no representation at the inquest, and did not ask any questions or present any evidence. Based on the wife's testimony that she was owed a particular amount, the Supreme Court awarded her all of the sums that could potentially become due over the 10-year period following the date of the separation agreement. Because the separation agreement did not contain an acceleration clause, the wife was not entitled to these sums at time she made the request (see Long Is. R.R. Co. v Northville Indus. Corp., 41 NY2d 455, 466; McCready v Lindenborn, 172 NY 400, 408; Runfola v Cavagnaro, 78 AD3d 1035; Zarembka v Zarembka, 81 AD2d 742; Gutman v Gutman, 51 AD2d 535, 536). Further, the amount awarded in the judgment entered July 8, 2009, was based on the assumption that the husband would be required to pay the maximum $1,000 per month for the wife's health insurance premiums and $350 per month for the wife's cell phone expenses, while the evidence the wife submitted in support of her earlier motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the complaint showed that her actual monthly health insurance and cell phone expenses were usually substantially less than these amounts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the husband's motion which was to vacate the judgment entered July 8, 2009, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) in the interests of substantial justice (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d at 68; Wade v Village of Whitehall, 46 AD3d at 1303; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d at 630; Lane v Lane, 175 AD2d at 105).

 

Rampersant v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 02530 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The defendant moved pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(e), inter alia, to vacate the note of issue, contending that the plaintiff failed to comply with, among other things, certain demands for bank and credit card statements and authorizations for cellular phone records for the years 2005 and 2006. By order dated March 6, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion, inter alia, to vacate the note of issue only to the extent of directing the plaintiff to provide authorizations for the disclosure of his Wachovia Bank statements, credit card statements, and cellular phone records for the time period between January 1, 2006, and August 2006. The defendant subsequently moved, inter alia, to modify the order dated March 6, 2009, to extend the time period of disclosure to include August 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. In support thereof, the defendant submitted the plaintiff's application for automobile insurance dated August 7, 2005, to demonstrate that the requested discovery was material and necessary to the defense of this action. The court denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to modify the prior order.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate the note of issue, since it directed discovery to be completed by a date certain (see Joseph v Propst, 306 AD2d 246; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v Assessor of Town of Brookhaven, 122 AD2d 794, 795).

However, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to modify the order dated March 6, 2009, to extend the time period of disclosure to include August 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, should have been granted (see CPLR 5015[a][4]). By submitting the plaintiff's application for insurance dated August 7, 2005, the defendant demonstrated that the disclosure sought for the time period between August 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005, was material and necessary to the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101[a]; Insurance Law § 3105[a]; Cain v United Ins. Co., 232 SC 397, 401, 102 SE2d 360; Barkan v New York Schools Ins. Reciprocal, 65 AD3d 1061, 1064; Tannenbaum v Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Phila., 53 AD2d 86 affd 41 NY2d 1087).