Kasumu v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kasumu v. City of New York

78 A.D.3d 560, 911 N.Y.S.2d 61

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

DecidedNovember 23, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 560 (Kasumu v. City of New York) 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

Kasumu v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 560, 911 N.Y.S.2d 61 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered September 22, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted plaintiffs motion to vacate the default judgment dismissing the action and restored the action to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the default judgment reinstated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

A plaintiff attempting to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Carroll v Nostra Realty Corp., 54 AD3d 623 [2008], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 792 [2009]). While the determination as to whether a party has established a reasonable excuse usually rests within the sound discretion of the motion court, here, the court improvidently exercised such discretion. The conduct of plaintiffs counsel in failing to appear for jury selection was only the latest in a series of defaults and nonappearances over the course of the litigation that should not be excused (see e.g. Dayton Towers Corp. v Katz, 208 AD2d 494 [1994], appeal dismissed 85 NY2d 934 [1995]).

Furthermore, plaintiffs motion was untimely, as it was brought more than one year after entry of the judgment and service of the notice of entry. While the court does retain the inherent power to excuse an untimely motion to vacate (see e.g. Hunter v Enquirer | Star, Inc., 210 AD2d 32, 33 [1994]), there exists no basis to do so in light of the pattern of neglect demonstrated by plaintiffs counsel. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered September 22, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted plaintiffs motion to vacate the default judgment dismissing the action and restored the action to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the default judgment reinstated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

A plaintiff attempting to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Carroll v Nostra Realty Corp., 54 AD3d 623 [2008], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 792 [2009]). While the determination as to whether a party has established a reasonable excuse usually rests within the sound discretion of the motion court, here, the court improvidently exercised such discretion. The conduct of plaintiffs counsel in failing to appear for jury selection was only the latest in a series of defaults and nonappearances over the course of the litigation that should not be excused (see e.g. Dayton Towers Corp. v Katz, 208 AD2d 494 [1994], appeal dismissed 85 NY2d 934 [1995]).

Furthermore, plaintiffs motion was untimely, as it was brought more than one year after entry of the judgment and service of the notice of entry. While the court does retain the inherent power to excuse an untimely motion to vacate (see e.g. Hunter v Enquirer | Star, Inc., 210 AD2d 32, 33 [1994]), there exists no basis to do so in light of the pattern of neglect demonstrated by plaintiffs counsel. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 560, 911 N.Y.S.2d 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kasumu-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack