Legal Opinion · Dissent

Spickerman v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 25, 1982No. Claim No. 64227Published

1Dissent

Casey, J. (dissenting).

We respectfully dissent. We cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the State’s default should be excused. In Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594, 599), the court held that in order to avoid dismissal for failure timely to serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]), the plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and that the claim has legal merit. Similarly, in order to vacate a default judgment under CPLR 5015 (subd [a]), the defendant must also show a valid excuse and a meritorious defense (see, e.g., Matter of Hanover Sand & Gravel v New…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Barasch v. MicucciNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Bruno v. Village of Port ChesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  3. Taylor v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
  4. Cockfield v. ApothekerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  5. Marine Midland Bank v. TookerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API