From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klenk v. Kent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1984
103 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

July 13, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Kramer, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O'Donnell, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, without costs, defendant's motion denied and judgment reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendant leave to reargue plaintiffs' original motion for a default judgment and which, upon reargument, vacated the order granting the default judgment, vacated the default judgment, and directed plaintiffs to accept service of defendant's answer and counterclaim. We reverse.

¶ A defendant late in answering is in default and his application to be excused therefrom is equivalent to a motion to open a default judgment ( Bermudez v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 865; see, also, Bernard v. City School Dist., 96 A.D.2d 995). To succeed on the motion, defendant must show a reasonable excuse for his delay and must demonstrate that his defense or claim has merit ( Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Andersen Co., 60 N.Y.2d 693).

¶ Here, defendant's delay of three months in serving an answer cannot be characterized as minor ( Bernard v. City School Dist., supra; cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Viger, 94 A.D.2d 592) and clearly resulted from law office failure. While Special Term had discretion to excuse such failure (CPLR 2005; 3012, subd [d]), it was improper to do so absent a showing of merit. Having failed to submit an affidavit, defendant relies solely upon the proposed answer and counterclaim for his showing of merit. Although a verified pleading alleging evidentiary facts may serve as an affidavit of merit (see CPLR 105, subd [t]), defendant's pleading as it appears in the record, does not contain a verification. Beyond that, however, the answer merely denies "knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief" as to plaintiffs' causes of action, and the counterclaim sets forth only conclusory facts in a skeletal manner and fails to address the gravamen of plaintiffs' claims. The pleading, therefore, is insufficient as an affidavit of merit.


Summaries of

Klenk v. Kent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1984
103 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Klenk v. Kent

Case Details

Full title:FRANK KLENK et al., Appellants, v. HENRY K. KENT, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 13, 1984

Citations

103 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Farrar v. Archer

Memorandum: The court abused its discretion by vacating an order of preclusion and two orders of summary…

Woodward v. Eighmie Moving Storage, Inc.

Defendant, however, contends that he is entitled to be relieved of his default solely on the basis of these…