Opinion
2014-04392
03-11-2015
Debra BETZ, etc., respondent, v. Carmela CARBONE, appellant.
Davis LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eric M. Davis of counsel), for appellant. Bashian & Farber, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Andrew Frisenda of counsel), for respondent.
Davis LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eric M. Davis of counsel), for appellant.
Bashian & Farber, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Andrew Frisenda of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion In an action to recover damages for unjust enrichment and conversion, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated April 3, 2014, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated November 18, 2013, entered upon her failure to answer the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To vacate a judgment entered upon her failure to answer the complaint, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116 ; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 120 A.D.3d 1322, 1323, 992 N.Y.S.2d 361 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hampton, 119 A.D.3d 856, 989 N.Y.S.2d 368 ). While the court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse, a pattern of willful default and neglect should not be excused (see Vardaros v. Zapas, 105 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 963 N.Y.S.2d 408 ; Bazoyah v. Herschitz, 79 A.D.3d 1081, 1081, 913 N.Y.S.2d 769 ; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568, 569, 657 N.Y.S.2d 66 ).
Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default in interposing an answer. Her prior attorney did not adequately explain his failure to interpose an answer even though opposing counsel agreed to an overall extension of approximately 1 ½ months to do so (see White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.3d 651, 652, 843 N.Y.S.2d 168 ; Rodriguez v. Ng, 23 A.D.3d 450, 451, 805 N.Y.S.2d 570 ; John G. Trautwein Fish Co. v. Gerland, 201 A.D.2d 862, 863, 607 N.Y.S.2d 512 ). Furthermore, the prior attorney's claims of law office failure to explain the default in opposing the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment were insufficient to justify the additional delay of approximately 4 ½ months in moving to vacate the default judgment after the court granted the plaintiff's motion (see Vardaros v. Zapas, 105 A.D.3d at 1038, 963 N.Y.S.2d 408 ; Heidari v. First Advance Funding Corp., 55 A.D.3d 669, 670, 866 N.Y.S.2d 258 ; Ortega v. Bisogno & Meyerson, 38 A.D.3d 510, 511, 831 N.Y.S.2d 259 ). In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Vardaros v. Zapas, 105 A.D.3d at 1038, 963 N.Y.S.2d 408 ; Maida v. Lessing's Rest. Servs., Inc., 80 A.D.3d 732, 915 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; O'Donnell v. Frangakis, 76 A.D.3d 999, 908 N.Y.S.2d 589 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment entered upon her failure to answer the complaint.