From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hokayem v. Leland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1996
226 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.

In moving to vacate a default judgment entered against him, the respondent was required to establish both a valid excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying action ( see, Matter of Hostomsky v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 214 A.D.2d 733; Schiavetta v. McKeon, 190 A.D.2d 724). In this case, the respondent failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his delay of seven months in serving an answer. The record shows a pattern of repeated neglect and intentional default. Accordingly, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to vacate the default judgment ( see, Torres v. Houses "R" Us, 182 A.D.2d 684; Perellie v Crimson's Rest., 108 A.D.2d 903; Passalacqua v. Banat, 103 A.D.2d 769). Balletta, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hokayem v. Leland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1996
226 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Hokayem v. Leland

Case Details

Full title:DOLLY HOKAYEM et al., Appellants, v. SCOTT LELAND, Defendant, and LAWRENCE…

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

Date published: Apr 1, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 763

Citing Cases

Robinson v. 1068 Flatbush Realty, Inc.

A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the…

Apolonio v. Haav 575 Realty Corp.

It is not a reasonable excuse for the defendant to erroneously assume the invalidity of an action and the…