White v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation
| Decision Date | 02 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | 26856/04.,2006-10529. |
| Citation | 44 A.D.3d 651,843 N.Y.S.2d 168,2007 NY Slip Op 07426 |
| Parties | JUDITH WHITE et al., Respondents, v. DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORPORATION et al., Defendants, and WILFREDO CORTEZ et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to vacate their default in answering the complaint, the appellants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve an answer, and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Forward Door of N.Y., Inc. v Forlader, 41 AD3d 535 [2007]; Piton v Cribb, 38 AD3d 741 [2007]; Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]). Although a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Holder, 31 AD3d 636 [2006]; Matter of Denton v City of Mount Vernon, 30 AD3d 600 [2006]; McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569 [2006]; Solomon v Ramlall, 18 AD3d 461 [2005]). Here, the appellants' uncorroborated and inadequately-explained excuse for failing to answer did not constitute a reasonable excuse. In fact, the record supports the conclusion that the appellants purposely embarked upon a course of "willful default and neglect" (Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393, 394 [2004]; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512 [1998]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). Moreover, the appellants' claim that their attorney apparently made an erroneous assumption regarding the need to answer the complaint does not constitute a valid excuse (see Everything Yogurt v Toscano, 232 AD2d 604 [1996]; Awad v Severino, 122 AD2d 242 [1986]; see also Rodriguez v Ng, 23 AD3d 450 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paulus v. Christopher Vacirca, Inc.
...Corp., 123 A.D.3d 676, 998 N.Y.S.2d 397 ; Borrie v. County of Suffolk, 88 A.D.3d 842, 843, 931 N.Y.S.2d 510 ; White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.3d 651, 652, 843 N.Y.S.2d 168 ; Rodriguez v. Ng, 23 A.D.3d 450, 451, 805 N.Y.S.2d 570 ; Everything Yogurt, Inc. v. Toscano, 232 A.D.2d 604, 6......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini
...at 905, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357;Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 A.D.3d at 784, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209;White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.3d 651, 651–652, 843 N.Y.S.2d 168;Sommers v. Sommers, 305 A.D.2d 662, 662, 759 N.Y.S.2d 689;compare Papandrea v. Acevedo, 54 A.D.3d at 916, 864 N.......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Colucci
...conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse” (White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.3d 651, 843 N.Y.S.2d 168 ; see People's United Bank v. Latini Tuxedo Mgt., LLC, 95 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 944 N.Y.S.2d 909 ; Ogunmoyin v. 1515 ......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Krauss
...Co., 69 A.D.3d 613, 614, 892 N.Y.S.2d 484 ; Campbell–Jarvis v. Alves, 68 A.D.3d 701, 702, 889 N.Y.S.2d 257 ; White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.3d 651, 651, 843 N.Y.S.2d 168 ). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the alleged mistake was not an isolated error, but part of a pattern o......