From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 2006
26 A.D.3d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7539.

February 21, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered July 8, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment as against defendant Yvette Richards, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter remitted for an inquest on the issue of damages.

Armand J. Rosenberg, New York, for appellant.

Harry M. Stokes, Granite Springs, for respondent.

Before: Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ. Concur.


Plaintiff's decedent died in a fire in a building owned by defendants. Plaintiff commenced the instant action against defendants to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries sustained by the decedent. Neither defendant answered the action, and, nine months after effecting service of process, plaintiff moved for a default judgment against both.

Supreme Court granted that aspect of the motion that sought a default judgment against Casper Richards, who submitted no opposition. However, the court denied the motion as against Yvette Richards, finding that her opposition papers sufficiently demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her failure to timely answer and a meritorious defense to the action.

It is well established that to avoid entry of a default judgment upon a failure to appear or answer, a defendant is required to demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense ( see Juseinoski v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y, 15 AD3d 353). Defendant Yvette Richards's opposition to the motion, the two-page affirmation of her counsel and a proposed answer verified by counsel, who had no personal knowledge of the facts pertaining to this case, was insufficient to establish either of the required showings ( see Pampalone v. Giant Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., 17 AD3d 556; Juseinoski, supra; see also Lopez v. Trucking Stratford, 299 AD2d 187 [conclusory assertion by defendant's counsel that issues of fact existed relating to notice and comparative negligence insufficient to demonstrate meritorious defense]).


Summaries of

Young v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 2006
26 A.D.3d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Young v. Richards

Case Details

Full title:FRANKLIN YOUNG, as Administrator of the Estate of TASHARA VERNEL YOUNG…

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

Date published: Feb 21, 2006

Citations

26 A.D.3d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1252
809 N.Y.S.2d 82

Citing Cases

Marks v. Nail & Spa 72, Inc.

However, even assuming, arguendo, that Nail & Spa successfully demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its…

Cent. Funding Co. v. C.D. Kobsons Inc.

To avoid entry of a default judgment, a defendant must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a…