Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a lower court order that denied the defendants' motion to vacate a prior order striking their answer for failing to appear at pretrial conferences. Applying CPLR 5015(a)(1), the court found the defendants' explanation of law office failure constituted a reasonable excuse, particularly given the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff and the strong public policy favoring resolution on the merits. The court also determined the defendants demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the underlying unpaid overtime wage claim. Consequently, the motion to vacate was granted and costs were awarded to the defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at pretrial conferences under CPLR 5015(a)(1).
- Whether the defendants showed a potentially meritorious defense sufficient to justify vacating the default order.
Holdings
- The appellate division reverses the trial court's denial and grants the motion to vacate the order striking the defendants' answer, finding that law‑office failure can constitute a reasonable excuse when supported by a credible explanation and that the defendants have a potentially meritorious defense.
Key quotations
“Whether a proffered excuse is reasonable is a sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits.” (at 1)
“Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party's default if the claim of such failure is supported by a credible and detailed explanation of the default.” (at 1)
Factual background
The defendants failed to appear at pretrial conferences on May 16, 2022, June 13, 2022, and August 8, 2022. The June conference was later rescheduled to a virtual appearance on August 8, 2022. In July 2022 the parties stipulated to vacate the note of issue and extend discovery to October 4, 2022. The defendants explained that they believed the conference would not be held, and moved promptly to cure the default.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Queens County struck the defendants' answer after they failed to appear at several pretrial conferences. The defendants moved to vacate that order under CPLR 5015(a)(1). The trial court denied the motion. The defendants appealed.