July 24, 2007
St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 06227)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-vincents-hosp-med-ctr-v-allstate-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-06227/
- Decided
- July 24, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 06227 · 42 AD3d 525
- Posture
- Default or vacatur
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- Defaults and vacatur
- Legal questions
- Vacating a default: excuse and defense (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 06227)
| St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06227 [42 AD3d 525] |
| July 24, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| St. Vincent’s Hospital & Medical Center, as Assignee of Rockeya Begum, Respondent, v Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant. |
—[*1] McDonnell & Adels, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Martha S. Henley of counsel), for appellant.
Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated November 3, 2005, which denied its motion to vacate a clerk’s judgment of the same court entered May 11, 2005, upon its failure to appear or answer, and for leave to serve a late answer.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, the clerk’s judgment is vacated, and the answer annexed to the defendant’s motion papers is deemed served on the plaintiff.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate a “reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint and a meritorious defense to the action” (Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co., 28 AD3d 442 [2006]). The defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely appear and answer the complaint and a potentially meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the clerk’s judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer, and for leave to serve a late answer.[*2]
Motion by the respondent on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 3, 2005, to strike portions of the appellant’s brief on the ground that those portions of the brief refer to matter dehors the record. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 30, 2006, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the motion is denied. Crane, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Covello, 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.
Did the defaulting party show a reasonable excuse (or lack of notice) and a potentially meritorious defense or claim?
This decision: Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowed
Held that the insurer showed a reasonable excuse for failing to timely appear and answer and a potentially meritorious defense, so denying vacatur of the clerk's judgment and leave to serve a late answer was an improvident exercise of discretion.
Of the 170 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 67 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02510)The insurer established grounds to vacate its default through an excuse tied to a misspelled insured's name and a meritorious coverage defense.
Cited by
- 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.
Similar decisions
- St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 07824)The insurer failed to establish a meritorious defense because its timely denial misstated the claim amount and gave an invalid reason.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04260)The insurer obtained default vacatur under CPLR 317 by showing untimely actual notice of the summons and meritorious defenses.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 00377)The insurer established a reasonable clerical excuse for its brief default and a potentially meritorious defense.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Hanover Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00674)The insurer's default judgment vacatur was affirmed, as was denial of the provider's contempt motion over an information subpoena.
- New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Insurance Co. of State of Pa. (2005 NY Slip Op 01691)The insurer failed to establish a meritorious defense required to vacate the provider's default judgment.