Mrkulic v Peters
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Legal malpractice litigation and New York civil procedure concerning default judgments, vacatur, and reargument.
After previously vacating the plaintiff's default judgment and deeming the defendants' answer timely served, the Supreme Court later granted the plaintiff leave to reargue under CPLR 2221(d)(2) [motion for leave to reargue must be based on facts or law the court allegedly overlooked or misapprehended and may not include new facts], reinstated the earlier default order, and entered judgment for the plaintiff.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue, and reinstated the March 30, 2023 order that had granted the defendants relief under CPLR 5015 [rule permitting a court to vacate an order or judgment] and treated their answer as timely served and filed.
The plaintiff did not show that the Supreme Court had overlooked or misapprehended any relevant facts or controlling law, so reargument was improperly used as a second chance to relitigate issues already decided.
Background
The plaintiff sued the defendants for legal malpractice in Kings County. On March 1, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment and directed entry of judgment in the amount demanded in the complaint. The defendants then moved under CPLR 5015 to vacate that order, and the plaintiff opposed. On March 30, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion and directed that their answer be considered timely served and filed. The plaintiff then moved for leave to reargue his opposition to the CPLR 5015 motion. On August 8, 2023, the court granted reargument, vacated the part of the March 30 order that had favored the defendants, reinstated the March 1 default order, and in effect denied the defendants' vacatur motion. A judgment dated August 23, 2023 was then entered for the plaintiff in the principal sum of $255,405.86.
Lower Court Decision
The appealed-from lower court ruling granted the plaintiff leave to reargue, held that the prior March 30, 2023 order should be undone, reinstated the March 1, 2022 default order against the defendants, and resulted in entry of a money judgment for $255,405.86 in favor of the plaintiff.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division dismissed the direct appeal from the August 8, 2023 order because the right to appeal from that order terminated upon entry of judgment. Reviewing those issues on the appeal from the judgment, the court reversed the judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue under CPLR 2221(d)(2), reinstated so much of the March 30, 2023 order as had granted the defendants' CPLR 5015 motion and deemed their answer timely served and filed, modified the August 8, 2023 order accordingly, and awarded one bill of costs to the defendants.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a motion to reargue under CPLR 2221(d)(2) is limited. It cannot be used to give an unsuccessful party repeated opportunities to press the same arguments or advance different ones. Reargument is proper only when the movant shows that the court overlooked or misapprehended facts or controlling law. The case also reiterates the appellate rule from Matter of Aho that a direct appeal from an intermediate order is extinguished by the entry of judgment, although the issues may still be reviewed on appeal from the judgment.
A party cannot use a reargument motion as a do-over. Without a showing that the court overlooked facts or law, an order granting reargument and reinstating a default judgment will be reversed.