Ruppell v. Hair Plus Beauty, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Nahum v. Mansour (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Nahum v. Mansour (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Pimento v. Rojas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- American Home Assurance Co. v. Rahim (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Grasso v. Tortorello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Conserve Electric, Inc. v. Tulger Contracting Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- DePiazzy v. Lakey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Westchester Medical Center v. Clarendon Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Marmo v. Gebbia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated October 10, 2000, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered May 24, 1999, dismissing the complaint upon her default in appearing at trial.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A plaintiff seeking to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Wynne v Wagner, 262 AD2d 556; Rock v Schwartz, 244 AD2d 542). What constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
The repeated refusal of the plaintiff’s counsel to proceed with the trial on the scheduled trial dates, as well as her failure to comply with Uniform Rules for the Engagement of Counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 125.1, demonstrate a pattern of willful neglect of the legal process (see, 22 NYCRR 125.1 [c]; Wynne v Wagner, supra; Rock v Schwartz, supra; Gannon v Johnson Scale Co., 189 AD2d 1052). Furthermore, the plaintiffs conclusory affidavit of merit was deficient (see, Saeed v Boulevard Hosp., 109 AD2d 831). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to vacate the judgment. Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.