Ss Constantine and Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of America v. Z. Zindel, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 October 2007 |
Docket Number | 2006-11026. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 07684,843 N.Y.S.2d 414,44 A.D.3d 744 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | SS CONSTANTINE AND HELEN'S ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. Z. ZINDEL, INC., Appellant. |
Ordered that the order dated October 16, 2006, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), a court may vacate a default in opposing a motion where the moving party demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense to the motion (see Energy Brands, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 591, 591-592 [2007]; Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 AD3d 673 [2007]). Whether an excuse is reasonable is a determination within the sound discretion of the court (see Abrams v City of New York, 13 AD3d 566 [2004]; Carnazza v Shoprite of Staten Is., 12 AD3d 393 [2004]). Under appropriate circumstances, a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 AD3d at 673; Rockland Tr. Mix, Inc. v Rockland Enters. Inc., 28 AD3d 630 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for its default in opposing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, as the failure of the plaintiff's counsel to oppose the motion for summary judgment was isolated and unintentional with no evidence of willful neglect (see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 AD3d at 673; Henry v Kuveke, 9 AD3d 476, 479 [2004]; cf. Gironda v Katzen, 19 AD3d 644 [2005]). Furthermore, the plaintiff's submissions were sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herrera v. MTA Bus Co.
...of the Supreme Court ( see Walker v. Mohammed, 90 A.D.3d at 1034, 934 N.Y.S.2d 854;SS Constantine & Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of Am. v. Z. Zindel, Inc., 44 A.D.3d 744, 745, 843 N.Y.S.2d 414), and the Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse......
-
Chevalier v. 368 E. 148th St. Associates, LLC
..."was purely the result of inadvertent law office failure" by their attorneys]; SS Constantine and Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of Am. v. Z. Zindel, Inc., 44 A.D.3d 744, 745, 843 N.Y.S.2d 414 [2007] [court providently exercised its discretion in determining that excuse was reasonable, wh......
-
Jackson v. Kothuru
...neglect (compare Maniscalco v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. , 128 A.D.3d 1029, 9 N.Y.S.3d 650, SS Constantine & Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of America v. Z. Zindel, Inc. , 44 A.D.3d 744, 843 N.Y.S.2d 414, and Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. , 37 A.D.3d 673, 830 N.Y.S.2d 336......
-
Couteller v. Mamakos
... ... a meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v ... A.C. Dutton Lumber Co., 67 N.Y.2d ... discretion of the motion courts (SS Constantine & ... Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of merica v A. Zindel, ... Inc., 44 A.D.3d 744, 745 [2d Dept ... ...