From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Titan Realty Corporation v. Schlem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

May 21, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered February 28, 2000, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered September 3, 1999, upon his default in appearing, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated April 26, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew his prior motion.

Wrobel Markham Schatz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David C. Wrobel and Barbara Rowin of counsel), for appellant.

Gordon Gordon, Mineola, N.Y. (Peter S. Gordon of counsel), for respondents.


ORDERED that the order dated February 28, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated April 26, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

A party seeking to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim or defense (see, CPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Gambardella v. Ortov Lighting, 278 A.D.2d 494; Parker v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 310; Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School Dist., 267 A.D.2d 290). What constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Matter of Gambardella v. Ortov Lighting, supra; Parker v. City of New York, supra; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568).

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendant's explanation of law office failure as a reasonable excuse due to his "pattern of willful default and neglect" (Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, supra, at 569). To the extent that the defendant failed to present any arguments with respect to the denial of his motion for leave to renew, we find no reason to disturb the order of the Supreme Court.

In light of our determination, the defendant's remaining contentions are academic.

SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Titan Realty Corporation v. Schlem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Titan Realty Corporation v. Schlem

Case Details

Full title:TITAN REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. STUART P. SCHLEM…

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

Date published: May 21, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 908

Citing Cases

Williams v. NEW LIMOUSINE

It is well settled that the penalty of preclusion is extreme and should only be levied when the failure to…

WE'RE ASSOCIATES CO. v. DUFFY

Cf, McCormack v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 466 NYS2d 279, 453 NE2d 508 (C.A. 1983); Matter of Department of…