Haimov v. Haimov

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed an order that denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment on liability and granted the defendant's cross-motion to compel acceptance of a late answer. The court held that the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default and the delay in seeking acceptance of the late answer, making it unnecessary to consider whether he had a potentially meritorious defense.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff made a facially adequate motion for leave to enter a default judgment by submitting proof of service, proof of facts constituting a viable cause of action, and proof of defendant's default.
2. Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to timely appear or answer the complaint.
3. Because defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default, it was unnecessary to determine whether he had a potentially meritorious defense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established the requirements for leave to enter a default judgment on liability under CPLR 3215.
2. Whether defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his default and a potentially meritorious defense sufficient to oppose the default-judgment motion and compel plaintiff to accept his untimely answer.
3. Whether the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion and granting defendant's cross-motion.

Disposition

reversed