Kaplinsky v. Mazor
| Decision Date | 04 August 2003 |
| Citation | 307 A.D.2d 916,762 N.Y.S.2d 902 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | MARK KAPLINSKY, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ISAAC MAZOR et al., Appellants. |
Ordered that the notice of appeal from the order dated May 23, 2002, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered July 24, 2002 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; O'Leary v Noutsis, 303 AD2d 664, 665 [2003]; O'Shea v Bittrolff, 302 AD2d 439 [2003]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v ELRAC, Inc., 301 AD2d 518, 519 [2003]). Here, the affirmation of the defendants' attorney submitted in support of their motion to vacate indicated that the law firm was retained by the defendants' insurance carrier after the defendants' time to answer had expired. However, an insurance carrier's delay is insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for a default (see O'Shea v Bittrolff, supra; Meggett v Gibson, 302 AD2d 372, 373 [2003]; Cilindrello v Rayabin, 297 AD2d 699 [2002]; Andrade v Ranginwala, 297 AD2d 691 [2002]; Kachar v Berlin, 296 AD2d 479 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to vacate their default (see Ujueta v Wu, 303 AD2d 676 [2003]; O'Shea v Bittrolff, supra; Cilindrello v Rayabin, supra; Forestire v Little, 293 AD2d 710 [2002]).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without remit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medas v. Rochpark Realty, LLC
...104 A.D.3d 936, 936–937, 961 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; Miller v. Ateres Shlomo, LLC, 49 A.D.3d 612, 613, 853 N.Y.S.2d 602 ; Kaplinsky v. Mazor, 307 A.D.2d 916, 762 N.Y.S.2d 902 ). Since Rochpark failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default, we need not reach the issue of whether it demons......
-
Fid. Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Valtech Research, Inc.
...N.E.2d 116; Taylor v. Saal, 4 A.D.3d 467, 771 N.Y.S.2d 671; Dominguez v. Carioscia, 1 A.D.3d 396, 766 N.Y.S.2d 685; Kaplinsky v. Mazor, 307 A.D.2d 916, 762 N.Y.S.2d 902). However, because the plaintiff is not seeking to recover a "sum certain" within the meaning of CPLR 3215(a), its claim t......
-
Shy v. Shavin Corp.
...LLC , 150 A.D.3d 1221, 1223, 55 N.Y.S.3d 406 ; Miller v. Ateres Shlomo, LLC , 49 A.D.3d 612, 613, 853 N.Y.S.2d 602 ; Kaplinsky v. Mazor , 307 A.D.2d 916, 762 N.Y.S.2d 902 ). Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default, we need not address whether it establi......
-
Rochdale Ins. Co. v. Fairview Nursing Care Ctr., Inc.
...to excuse the delay in answering the complaint (see Campbell v. Ghafoor , 8 A.D.3d 316, 317, 777 N.Y.S.2d 718 ; Kaplinsky v. Mazor , 307 A.D.2d 916, 916, 762 N.Y.S.2d 902 ). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendants sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potent......