| White v Daimler Chrysler Corp. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07426 [44 AD3d 651] |
| October 2, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Judith White et al., Respondents, v Daimler ChryslerCorporation et al., Defendants, and Wilfredo Cortez et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Kerry E. Connolly, New York, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Wilfredo Cortezand Wilfredo Cortez, doing business as Fred Flat Fix appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated October 20, 2006, which denied their motion to vacate theirdefault in answering the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to vacate their default in answering the complaint, the appellants were required todemonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve an answer, and a meritorious defense(see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Forward Door of N.Y., Inc. v Forlader, 41 AD3d 535 [2007]; Piton v Cribb, 38 AD3d 741[2007]; Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16AD3d 544, 545 [2005]). Although a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as areasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claimof law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Holder, 31 AD3d 636 [2006]; Matter of Denton v City of MountVernon, 30 AD3d 600 [2006]; McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569 [2006]; Solomon v Ramlall, 18 AD3d 461[2005]). Here, the appellants' uncorroborated and inadequately-explained excuse for failing toanswer did not constitute a reasonable excuse. In fact, the record supports the conclusion that theappellants purposely embarked upon a course of "willful default and neglect" (Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps.Corp., 10 AD3d 393, [*2]394 [2004]; Kolajo v Cityof New York, 248 AD2d 512 [1998]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569[1997]). Moreover, the appellants' claim that their attorney apparently made an erroneousassumption regarding the need to answer the complaint does not constitute a valid excuse (seeEverything Yogurt v Toscano, 232 AD2d 604 [1996]; Awad v Severino, 122 AD2d242 [1986]; see also Rodriguez vNg, 23 AD3d 450 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in denying the motion. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.