Tarrant v Martinez
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Civil procedure—vacatur of default judgment in a personal injury trip-and-fall case.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) [provision permitting a court to vacate a judgment upon grounds including excusable default] to vacate a 2019 default judgment entered against him.
The order vacating the default judgment was reversed; the motion to vacate under CPLR 5015(a) was denied.
The defendant failed to show a reasonable excuse for his default; his conclusory, unsubstantiated claim of law office failure and mere neglect, despite multiple notices and consultation with counsel, is insufficient. Because no reasonable excuse was shown, the court did not need to reach whether a potentially meritorious defense existed.
Background
Plaintiff commenced a negligence action in May 2017 for injuries from a trip-and-fall on a Village of Hempstead sidewalk. Defendant failed to appear or answer. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment was granted on July 16, 2018, and judgment was entered on May 9, 2019. In May 2023, defendant moved to vacate the default judgment under CPLR 5015(a). The Supreme Court granted the motion on August 14, 2023, and plaintiff appealed.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.) granted that branch of defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) and vacated the default judgment entered on May 9, 2019.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from and denied the CPLR 5015(a) motion to vacate. The court held the defendant did not establish a reasonable excuse for his default, as his affidavit admitted receiving multiple notices and consulting an attorney yet failing to respond. Conclusory, unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure and mere neglect are insufficient; thus, the court did not reach the question of a potentially meritorious defense. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff-appellant.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that to vacate a default under CPLR 5015(a), a movant must present a credible, detailed explanation constituting a reasonable excuse; conclusory claims of law office failure or simple neglect will not suffice. If no reasonable excuse is shown, courts need not consider the existence of a meritorious defense.
A party seeking vacatur of a default judgment must provide a specific, credible excuse for the default; bare assertions of law office failure or neglect will not justify relief under CPLR 5015(a).