Opinion
November 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant to the petitioner Eveready Insurance Company.
The appellant contended that its failure to appear at an evidentiary hearing on the petition to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim was attributable to the misplacement of the file during the reorganization of its claims department. The excuse proffered for its default in appearing, after a vice-president had been personally served with process, is akin to law office failure (see, Klein v. Actors Directors Lab, 95 A.D.2d 757, lv dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 559; Bruno v. Village of Port Chester, 77 A.D.2d 580; Migliaccio v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 91 A.D.2d 821). Although CPLR 2005 and 3012(d) empower the court to exercise discretion in determining motions to vacate a default emanating from law office failure, the legislation did not intend to sanction the routine vacatur of such defaults (Montalvo v. Nel Taxi Corp., 114 A.D.2d 494, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 643, lv dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 643; La Buda v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 A.D.2d 711, affd 62 N.Y.2d 1014; De Vito v. Marine Midland Bank, 100 A.D.2d 530). Here, the appellant, upon discovering the judgment staying arbitration upon its default, delayed over 11 months before taking any step to be relieved of that default. No reasonable explanation was given for such inordinate delay. Although CPLR 5015 permits a party to move to set aside a judgment upon the ground of excusable default within one year after service upon the moving party of a copy of the judgment with notice of entry, an inordinate delay in seeking such relief upon discovery of one's default, for which no reasonable explanation is given, evidences a pattern of inexcusable neglect (see, Back v. Stern, 23 A.D.2d 837; Lind v Port of N.Y. Auth., 28 A.D.2d 984, appeal dismissed 20 N.Y.2d 948; Midnight Ears v. Clear-Vu Packaging, 81 A.D.2d 907; Justus v Justus, 92 A.D.2d 858; cf., Silverstein v Hobbyland Mar., 122 Misc.2d 1013). Under the circumstances, the movant was not entitled to a vacatur of its default, regardless of the meritorious nature of its defense (see, Montalvo v. Nel Taxi Corp., supra; cf., Matter of Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rothman, 116 A.D.2d 652). Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.