Roche v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*979In order to vacate his default in opposing the municipal defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his 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]). Although the plaintiffs claim of law office failure can be deemed a reasonable excuse (see Kohn v Kohn, 86 AD3d 630 [2011]; Winthrop Univ. Hosp. v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 78 AD3d 685, 686 [2010]), he did not demonstrate the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cuffy v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Simpson v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Kohn v. KohnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Greene v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Brown v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Herrera v. MTA Bus Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Taylor Appraisals v. ProkopAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Bardes v. PintadoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- 1158 Properties, LLC v. 1158 McDonald, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- 1158 Properties, LLC v. 1158 McDonald, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.