From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baldini v. New York City Employees Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 1998
254 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 20, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.).


In order to vacate a default the moving party must demonstrate a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for the delay ( Arias v. Sanchez, 227 A.D.2d 284). The courts have the discretion to consider law office failure as a reasonable excuse (CPLR 2005; Lopez v. City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 388). Here, it was an abuse of discretion to reject NYCERS's answer when it was served nine days after the date set by the Court but two weeks before the scheduled argument date ( Matter of Murray v. Matusiak, 247 A.D.2d 303; Matter of Kaufman v. Board of Educ., 210 A.D.2d 226). A proceeding to annul a determination by an administrative agency "'should not be concluded in the petitioner's favor merely upon the basis of a failure to answer the petition on the return date thereof, unless it appears that such failure to plead was intentional and that the administrative body has no intention to have the controversy determined on the merits.'" ( Matter of Glenbriar Co. v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 93 A.D.2d 510, 513, quoting Matter of Abrums v. Kern, 35 A.D.2d 971, 972.) Further, disability retirement pensions should not be granted solely because of technical defaults by the Assistant Corporation Counsel that do not prejudice the petitioner ( Bank v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 61 A.D.2d 954). There is no evidence in the record demonstrating a deliberate default by the respondent nor is there any showing of prejudice to petitioner.

While the Corporation Counsel's conduct in this matter was not wilful, contumacious or in bad faith ( Ulloa v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 487), the conduct was egregious and stretched the limit of law office failure as constituting excusable default. Such conduct must not be condoned and, therefore, we do not disturb the sanctions and costs imposed by the trial court.

Concur — Lerner, P.J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Baldini v. New York City Employees Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 1998
254 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Baldini v. New York City Employees Retirement System

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROCCO BALDINI, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES…

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

Date published: Oct 20, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 3

Citing Cases

Williams v. All Typeleasing Corp.

Arguendo, even if the motion to vacate was made within one year of notice of entry, an application to vacate…

Santiago v. Valentin

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered September 10, 2013, which denied…