Taylor Appraisals v. Prokop
Opinion of the Court
To vacate his default in opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Walker v Mohammed, 90 AD3d 1034 [2011]; Roche v City of New York, 88 AD3d 978, 979 [2011]; Casali v Cyran, 84 AD3d 711 [2011]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]). “While law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of a court’s sound discretion, the movant must submit supporting facts to explain and justify the default, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse” (Ogunmoyin v 1515 Broadway Fee Owner, LLC, 85 AD3d 991, 992 [2011]; see Morrison v Rosenberg, 278 AD2d 392, 392 [2000]; Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447, 447 [2000]).
Here, the defendant’s proffered excuse of law office failure was vague and unsubstantiated and, thus, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the default (see Ogunmoyin v 1515 Broadway Fee Owner, LLC, 85 AD3d at 992; Alberton Devs., Inc. v All Trade Enters., Inc., 74 AD3d 1000 [2010]; Siculan v Koukos, 74 AD3d 946, 947 [2010]; Chechen v Spencer, 68 AD3d 801 [2009]). Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.