Scarlett v. McCarthy

2 A.D.3d 623, 768 N.Y.S.2d 342
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 623 (Scarlett v. McCarthy) 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
Scarlett v. McCarthy, 2 A.D.3d 623, 768 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated February 11, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in appearing and answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate a default, the moving party must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Weekes v Karayianakis, 304 AD2d 561 [2003]; cf. Antoku v Grace Indus., 295 AD2d 294 [2002]; Fuller v Tae Kwon, 259 AD2d 662 [1999]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse is left to the sound discretion of the court (see Holt Constr. Corp. v J & R Music World, 294 AD2d 540 [2002]; Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]). Further, public policy favors a determination of controversies on their merits (see Eastern Resource Serv. v Mountbatten Sur. Co., 289 AD2d 283, 284 [2001]; Darrell v Yurchuk, 174 AD2d 557 [1991]).

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion [624]*624in accepting the defendant’s proffered excuse that his insurance carrier was actively engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiff’s counsel, and that the plaintiff’s counsel never mentioned that he would be moving for leave to enter a default judgment (see Lehrman v Lake Katonah Club, 295 AD2d 322 [2002]; Swain v Janzen, 121 AD2d 378, 379 [1986]). Additionally, the defendant established the existence of a meritorious defense based upon the circumstances of the accident, which indicate that the plaintiff could be found at least partially at fault in the happening of the accident. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ali v. City of New York
75 Misc. 3d 142(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Sajdak
2021 NY Slip Op 01393 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Cumanet, LLC v. Murad
2020 NY Slip Op 07033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Clinton Place Med., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
65-60 Realty Co., LLC v. Towaki Komatsu
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Gluck v. McDonough
139 A.D.3d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Adbul v. Lopez
111 A.D.3d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Khanal v. Sheldon
74 A.D.3d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Merchants Insurance Group v. Hudson Valley Fire Protection Co.
72 A.D.3d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Performance Construction Corp. v. Huntington Building, LLC
68 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Joo Tae Kim v. 158 Plaza Corp.
35 A.D.3d 542 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Armstrong Trading, Ltd. v. MBM Enterprises
29 A.D.3d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Antoine v. Bee
26 A.D.3d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
65 North 8 Street HDFC v. Suarez
18 A.D.3d 732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
American Shoring, Inc. v. D.C.A. Construction, Ltd.
15 A.D.3d 431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Abrams v. City of New York
13 A.D.3d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Katina, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead
13 A.D.3d 343 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Costanza v. Gold
12 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ray Realty Fulton, Inc. v. Lee
7 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Beizer v. Funk
5 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 623, 768 N.Y.S.2d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarlett-v-mccarthy-nyappdiv-2003.