Legal Opinion
Walker v. Mohammed
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 27, 2011PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
To vacate their default in opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Casali v Cyran, 84 AD3d 711 [2011]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]). Whether an excuse is reasonable is a determination within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see SS Constantine & Helen’s Romanian Orthodox Church of Am. v Z. Zindel, Inc., 44 AD3d 744, 745 [2007]).
Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Simpson v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Casali v. CyranAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- SS Constantine & Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of America v. Z. Zindel, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
3Cited by34 opinions
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. GuccioneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Vardaros v. ZapasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Needleman v. TornheimAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Herrera v. MTA Bus Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Polsky v. SimonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.