American Home Assurance Co. v. Rahim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Home Assurance Co. v. Rahim

89 A.D.3d 972, 933 N.Y.2d 571

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 972 (American Home Assurance Co. v. Rahim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Home Assurance Co. v. Rahim, 89 A.D.3d 972, 933 N.Y.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

To vacate the judgment entered upon his failure to answer the complaint or appear for a scheduled trial, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default and a potentially meritorious defense (see McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569 [2006]; Kein v Zeno, 23 AD3d 351 [2005]; Rubenbauer v Mekelburg, 22 AD3d 826 [2005]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court’s discretion (see Hageman v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 25 AD3d 760 [2006]; Ruppell v Hair Plus Beauty, 288 AD2d 205 [2001]). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s preferred excuse for his default. Moreover, the defendant made no showing that he had a potentially meritorious defense to the [973]*973action. Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

To vacate the judgment entered upon his failure to answer the complaint or appear for a scheduled trial, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default and a potentially meritorious defense (see McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569 [2006]; Kein v Zeno, 23 AD3d 351 [2005]; Rubenbauer v Mekelburg, 22 AD3d 826 [2005]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court’s discretion (see Hageman v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 25 AD3d 760 [2006]; Ruppell v Hair Plus Beauty, 288 AD2d 205 [2001]). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s preferred excuse for his default. Moreover, the defendant made no showing that he had a potentially meritorious defense to the [973]*973action. Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 972, 933 N.Y.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-home-assurance-co-v-rahim-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack