Legal Opinion

Coakley v. Gabel

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

Decided February 2, 1990PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*955On appeal, defendant contends that Special Term abused its discretion in relieving plaintiffs of their default because plaintiffs failed to supply a reasonable excuse for their default and failed to submit an affidavit of merit. We agree. Although Special Term has discretion to relieve a party of a default because of "law office failure” (CPLR 2005), a party seeking to be relieved of a default is required to tender a reasonable excuse for the delay and an affidavit demonstrating the meritorious nature of the claim (see, CPLR 2005, 5015 [a]; Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904;…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fiore v. GalangNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. FID. & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. Arthur Andersen & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Kel Management Corp. v. Rogers & WellsNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. Quigley v. JabburAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Clanton v. VagianellisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  2. Coakley v. AfricanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. Curcio v. SaxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  4. Martin v. SalvageAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API