December 29, 2003

Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H. (2003 NY Slip Op 19994)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/wyckoff-hgts-med-ctr-v-merchants-ins-co-of-n-h-2003-ny-slip-op-19994/

Court: Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided: December 29, 2003
Citation: 2003 NY Slip Op 19994 · 2 AD3d 841
Posture: Default or vacatur
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Later treatment: Distinguished in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues: Defaults and vacatur
Legal questions: Vacating a default: excuse and defense (see the maps)

Cite as

Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H., 2 AD3d 841 (2d Dept 2003)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer's intentional default was not excusable because it sought vacatur only after the provider moved for contempt. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, denied the insurer's cross motion, and reinstated the provider's unopposed summary judgment order and resulting judgment. Under CPLR 5015, vacatur requires both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense. The insurer knew of the default judgment but took no steps to vacate it until the provider sought contempt relief for noncompliance with an information subpoena issued to enforce the judgment. That conduct constituted an intentional, inexcusable default.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H. (2003 NY Slip Op 19994)

Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H.

2003 NY Slip Op 19994 [2 AD3d 841]

December 29, 2003

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, as Assignee of Cristino Moronta, Appellant,
v
Merchants Insurance Company of New Hampshire, Respondent.

—

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated January 3, 2003, as granted the defendant’s cross motion to vacate (1) an order of the same court dated May 14, 2002, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment upon the defendant’s failure to oppose the motion, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered June 21, 2002, upon the order.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the order dated May 14, 2002, and the judgment entered June 21, 2002, are reinstated.

A party seeking to be relieved of its default must establish both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015; Eretz Funding v Shalosh Assoc., 266 AD2d 184, 185 [1999]). In this case, the defendant was aware that the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against it and took no steps to vacate the default until the plaintiff moved to hold the defendant in contempt of court for failing to comply with an information subpoena designed to enforce the judgment. Such conduct constituted an intentional default, which was not excusable (see Eretz Funding v Shalosh Assoc., supra; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 568-569 [1997]). Therefore, the defendant’s motion to vacate its default should have been denied. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Vacating a default: excuse and defense

Open the full map

Did the defaulting party show a reasonable excuse (or lack of notice) and a potentially meritorious defense or claim?

This decision: Relief denied because no reasonable excuse (or, under CPLR 317, no lack of actual notice) was shown; meritorious defense accepted or not reached

Reversed vacatur of the default summary judgment because the insurer knew of the judgment and moved only after a contempt motion, an intentional default that was not excusable.

Default excusedNo reasonable excuseNo meritorious defenseNeither shownHearing or remittalThis decisionCites it or cited by itDistinguished or limited

Of the 170 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 64 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02510) DistinguishedThe insurer established grounds to vacate its default through an excuse tied to a misspelled insured's name and a meritorious coverage defense.

Similar decisions

Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00528)The insurers showed an excusable default and a potentially meritorious defense based on partial exhaustion of policy limits.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 09609)The insurer's motion to vacate its default judgment was denied on appeal because it failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 00138)The insurer failed to justify vacating its default because its affidavit established neither a reasonable excuse nor a meritorious defense.
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02509)The insurer showed a reasonable excuse for its brief answering delay and potentially meritorious defenses, warranting default vacatur.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 06188)The insurer's clerical-oversight affidavit and potentially meritorious defense justified vacating its default judgment.