From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bergdorf Goodman Inc. v. Hillard

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51544 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)

Opinion

2002-1795 K C.

Decided November 21, 2003.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (K. Yellen, J.), entered November 15, 2002, granting defendant David Hillard's motion to vacate a default judgment.

Order unanimously reversed without costs and defendant David Hillard's motion to vacate a default judgment denied.

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.


A defendant seeking to vacate a default must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action ( Putney v. Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( Bardales v. Blades, 191 AD2d 667, 668). The court improvidently exercised its discretion in this case, however, and reversal is warranted ( see generally Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). Defendant did not proffer any defense to the action and provided only a bare, unsubstantiated allegation that his wife had problems with a pregnancy as an excuse ( see Westchester Med. Ctr. v. ELRAC, Inc., 301 AD2d 518; Eretz Funding v. Shalosh Assocs., 266 AD2d 184). Furthermore, the motion was made approximately 17 months after entry of the default judgment, and defendant provides no excuse for this delay ( see generally Molesky v. Molesky, 255 AD2d 821).


Summaries of

Bergdorf Goodman Inc. v. Hillard

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51544 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)
Case details for

Bergdorf Goodman Inc. v. Hillard

Case Details

Full title:BERGDORF GOODMAN INC., Appellant, v. DAVID HILLARD, Respondent, and LATIA…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51544 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)