From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

De Leo v. Bertucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1983
98 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

December 5, 1983


In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered October 1, 1982, which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While recent amendments to the CPLR have empowered the courts to exercise their discretion to excuse defaults resulting from law office failure (CPLR 2005, 3012; L 1983, ch 318), the amendments by no means guarantee that a default will be excused in all cases. On this record, defendant's conduct demonstrated a lengthy and deliberate pattern of delay which was without explanation. Since defendant was an attorney appearing pro se, the results of his dilatory conduct will fall, not upon an innocent client, but only upon himself. Accordingly, we conclude that, in a proper exercise of discretion, the default judgment should stand. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

De Leo v. Bertucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1983
98 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

De Leo v. Bertucci

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH DE LEO, Respondent, v. PETER N. BERTUCCI, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 5, 1983

Citations

98 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Zolov v. Donovan

In addition, Dr. Donovan ignored certified mail sent to him by the plaintiff advising him of the service of…

Walk & Smile, Inc. v. 2491 Atlantic Avenue Corp.

Under certain circumstances, in the exercise of discretion, we may excuse such conduct (CPLR 2005; Raphael v…