Kohn v. Kohn

86 A.D.3d 630, 928 N.Y.2d 55
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 26, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 86 A.D.3d 630 (Kohn v. Kohn) 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
Kohn v. Kohn, 86 A.D.3d 630, 928 N.Y.2d 55 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

To vacate her default in opposing the plaintiffs motion, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious opposition (see Remote Meter Tech. of NY, Inc. v Aris Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 1030 [2011]; Bazoyah v Herschitz, 79 AD3d 1081 [2010]). A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Dimitriadis v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 84 AD3d 1150 [2011]). The Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse {see CPLR 2005), where the claim of law office failure is supported by a “detailed and credible” explanation of the default (see Remote Meter Tech. of NY, Inc. v Aris Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 1030 [2011]; Winthrop Univ. Hosp. v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 78 AD3d 685, 686 [2010]). Here, the defendant’s claim of law office failure was supported by a “detailed and credible” explanation of the default, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting that explanation. Moreover, the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the plaintiffs motion.

Furthermore, the defendant demonstrated her entitlement to the subject interest and, thus, upon vacating the defendant’s default, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to direct that the subject interest be paid to her (see CPLR 5002; Aloi v Simoni, 82 AD3d 683, 686 [2011]; Bartek v Draper, 309 AD2d 825, 826 [2003]).

The defendant’s request for the counsel fees incurred in connection with the defense of this appeal is not properly before this Court (see Taft v Taft, 135 AD2d 809, 810 [1987]), and is properly addressed in the first instance to the Supreme Court (see Kane v Rudansky, 309 AD2d 785 [2003]). [631]*631The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of D. M. v. B. L. J.
2025 NY Slip Op 03648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gordon
2022 NY Slip Op 00897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Merilus v. Nassau Inter County Express (NICE)
2020 NY Slip Op 05500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Halberstam v. Lattimer
2020 NY Slip Op 3647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Fishbein
2020 NY Slip Op 260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Aquaviva
2019 NY Slip Op 8178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Ferreira v. Singh
2019 NY Slip Op 7237 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
New St. Assoc., LLC v. Gach
2019 NY Slip Op 4390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Toro v. Williams
2018 NY Slip Op 8315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Option One Mtge. Corp. v. Rose
2018 NY Slip Op 6023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Millard v. Wyche
2018 NY Slip Op 5838 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Singer
2017 NY Slip Op 6184 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Guccione
127 A.D.3d 1136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Ahmed
122 A.D.3d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Bank of New York v. Segui
120 A.D.3d 1369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Delvalle v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC
117 A.D.3d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Shin v. ITCI, Inc.
115 A.D.3d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Jihun Kim v. S&M Caterers, Inc.
112 A.D.3d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Braynin v. Dunleavy
109 A.D.3d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Needleman v. Tornheim
106 A.D.3d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 A.D.3d 630, 928 N.Y.2d 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohn-v-kohn-nyappdiv-2011.