On May 28, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Ping Lin v. Dao Asian Rest., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 03212, holding that it was error for a trial court to refuse to vacate a default judgment when there was sufficient justification for a law office failure, explaining:
A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing at a conference must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious cause of action or defense. Whether a proffered excuse is reasonable is a sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits. Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party’s default if the claim of such failure is supported by a credible and detailed explanation of the default.
Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendants’ excuse of law office failure was not reasonable. The record reflects that the defendants’ counsel did not fail to appear at a pretrial conference on June 13, 2022, as the court stated in the August 10, 2022 order. Rather, that conference was rescheduled for a virtual court appearance to be held on August 8, 2022. Prior to the August 8, 2022 conference, the parties entered into a stipulation in July 2022 to vacate the note of issue and extend the time to complete discovery. In an affirmation in support of the motion, the defendants’ counsel explained, among other things, that, since the parties had stipulated to vacate the note of issue and to extend the date to complete discovery to October 4, 2022, and given that the plaintiff had requested the court so-order the stipulation, he believed that the pretrial conference would not be held. The defendants’ counsel’s explanation was sufficient to establish the proffered excuse of law office failure, particularly given the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, that the defendants moved expeditiously to cure their default, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits. Additionally, the defendants demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).