County of Nassau v. Chmela

45 A.D.3d 722, 846 N.Y.S.2d 299
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 722 (County of Nassau v. Chmela) 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
County of Nassau v. Chmela, 45 A.D.3d 722, 846 N.Y.S.2d 299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In a civil forfeiture action, the defendant Donald J. Chmela III appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered December 7, 2006, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the action as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Donald J. Chmela III which was to dismiss the action as abandoned is granted.

“When a plaintiff fails to seek leave to enter a default judgment within one year after the default has occurred, the action is deemed abandoned” (Kay Waterproofing Corp. v Ray Realty Fulton, Inc., 23 AD3d 624, 625 [2005]; see CPLR 3215 [c]). “To avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned under such circumstances, a plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment, and must demonstrate that the complaint is meritorious” (Kay Waterproofing Corp. v Ray Realty Fulton, Inc., 23 AD3d at 625).

Here, the defendant Donald J. Chmela III (hereinafter the defendant) was in default as of March 14, 2005. However, the plaintiff offered no excuse for its failure to take any action in this matter until May 5, 2006, over 13 months later, when it contacted the defendant’s former attorney in a related, but now concluded, criminal matter. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in finding there was a sufficient excuse and in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which sought to dismiss this matter as abandoned (see Costello v Reilly, 36 AD3d 581 [2007]; Kay Waterproofing Corp. v Ray Realty Fulton, Inc., 23 AD3d 624 [2005]; see generally Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652-654 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Florio, Carni and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

A.H. Physical Therapy, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.
161 N.Y.S.3d 622 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Bank of New York v. Kushnir
2017 NY Slip Op 3922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Pipinias v. J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc.
116 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Taveras v. City of New York
108 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Giglio v. NTIMP Inc.
86 A.D.3d 301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Solano v. Castro
72 A.D.3d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
115-41 St. Albans Holding Corp. v. Estate of Harrison
71 A.D.3d 653 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Butindaro v. Grinberg
57 A.D.3d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Staples v. Jeff Hunt Developers, Inc.
56 A.D.2d 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
DuBois v. Roslyn National Mortgage Corp.
52 A.D.3d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.3d 722, 846 N.Y.S.2d 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-nassau-v-chmela-nyappdiv-2007.