On March 20, 2024, the Second Department issued a decision in Saleh v. Hudson 418 Riv. Rd., Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op. 01573, holding that an injunction granted on default should not have been vacated when there was no reasonable excuse for the default, explaining:
A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must submit evidence in admissible form establishing both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. A court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where the claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default. However, law office failure should not be excused where a default results not from an isolated, inadvertent mistake, but from repeated neglect, or where allegations of law office failure are vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated. Such defaults should not be routinely excused, and mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse.
Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendants failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a preliminary injunction. The defendants’ claim of law office failure was vague and contradictory, and did not constitute a reasonable excuse.
Since the defendants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default, it is not necessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the plaintiff’s motion.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of the February 2020 order as granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion, inter alia, for a preliminary injunction.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).