[*1]
Prowley v Dejay Litho, Inc.
2013 NY Slip Op 52217(U) [42 Misc 3d 131(A)]
Decided on December 24, 2013
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on December 24, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Torres, J.
570778/13

Sandra Prowley, Esq., Plaintiff-Respondent, - -

against

Dejay Litho, Inc. and Tyler Rubin, Defendants-Appellants.


Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered March 8, 2013, which denied their motion to vacate a default judgment.


Per Curiam.

Order (David B. Cohen, J.), entered March 8, 2013, reversed, without costs, motion granted, default judgment vacated, and matter remanded for further proceedings.

Considering the strong policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits (see Chevalier v 368 E. 148th St. Assoc., LLC, 80 AD3d 411. 413-414 [2011]), we exercise our discretion to relieve defendants of their default in appearing on the initial, January 7, 2013 trial date. The defendants' default does not appear to have been wilful or deliberate, but rather the result of defense counsel's misapprehension of the status of the case, fueled by the apparent pendency of a defense motion made returnable on January 18, 2013, as well as defense counsel's failure to follow up with the court on his December 10, 2012 letter requesting a brief trial adjournment to accommodate his "longstanding" plans to travel overseas for a two-week period ending January 6, 2013. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the defendants' isolated default is properly attributable to excusable law office failure (see Dellagatta v McGillicuddy, 31 AD3d 549, 550 [2006]; Cannon v Ireland's Own, Inc., 21 AD3d 264 [2005]). Further, defendants established a meritorious defense to the action, the sufficiency of which was neither forcefully challenged by plaintiff below nor addressed in the order under review. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 24, 2013