Rukeyser v Richardson
2007 NY Slip Op 06539 [43 AD3d 815]
September 4, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 7, 2007


Howard Rukeyser, Appellant,
v
Leacroft Richardson,Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[*1]Howard Rukeyser, White Plains, appellant pro se.

Richard St. Paul, Bronx, for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover fees for legal services rendered, the plaintiff appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Murphy, J.), entered March 23, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendantLeacroft Richardson which was to vacate his default in answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court has inherent discretionary power to vacate a default which is not subjectto the one-year limitation in CPLR 5015 (see Ray Realty Fulton, Inc. v Lee, 7 AD3d 772, 773 [2004]). Here,the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion ofthe defendant Leacroft Richardson which was to vacate his default in answering based on hispresentation of a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR5015 [a] [1]; Montefiore Med. Ctr. vHartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 AD3d 673 [2007]; Mele v Okubo, 36 AD3d 599, 600 [2007]). Schmidt, J.P.,Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.