Lehrman v. Lake Katonah Club, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Sajdak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Cumanet, LLC v. Murad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Loughran v. Giannoti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Performance Construction Corp. v. Huntington Building, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Armstrong Trading, Ltd. v. MBM Enterprises (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Kristeel Construction, Inc. v. Kulka Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- American Shoring, Inc. v. D.C.A. Construction, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Scarlett v. McCarthy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
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, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered July 9, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate a judgment of the same court dated May 2, 2001, entered upon its default in answering, and directed the plaintiff to accept the defendant’s untimely answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that on a motion to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), a movant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action or defense (see Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999; Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in excusing the defendant’s default in answering the complaint. The defendant presented proof that the parties had entered into settlement negotiations and that the plaintiff’s attorney never mentioned that he would enter a default judgment (see Swain v Janzen, 121 AD2d 378; Haviaris v 25 Broadway Corp., 93 AD2d 789). Moreover, the defendant’s proof was sufficient to establish a meritorious defense (see Concepcion v Talon Realty Corp., 258 AD2d 494; Anamdi v Anugo, 229 AD2d 408). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.