On October 5, 2022, the Second Department issued a decision in HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Joseph, 2022 NY Slip Op. 05521, holding that the disbarment of a defendant’s counsel was an insufficient basis to vacating a default judgment, explaining:
In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. Although law office failure may constitute a reasonable excuse for a default, such an excuse must be supported by a detailed and credible explanation for the law office failure alleged to have caused the default. Mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse, and where there is a pattern of default and neglect, the attorney’s neglect can be imputed to the client.
Here, although the defendant’s former counsel was disbarred, the defendant did not contend that the disbarment arose as a result of counsel’s failure to communicate with clients or neglect of client matters. The fact of a disbarment alone does not satisfy the defendant’s duty to provide a detailed and credible explanation for the law office failure that he claims caused his default in opposing the plaintiff’s motion. The defendant also failed to offer any reasonable explanation for his failure to apprise himself about the status of the action or inquire with his former counsel about the status of the action for multiple years. The defendant’s former counsel was not disbarred until after the inquest at which the defendant failed to appear. Under these circumstances, a history of repeated neglect on the part of the defendant’s prior counsel resulting in the default is imputed to the defendant.
Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, this Court need not consider whether the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the plaintiff’s motion.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).