367 New York opinions name it 12 courts 1961–2026 24 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hospitalgreen2 sentences2016Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 80 [2010]; Keenan v Florentino, 84 AD3d 740 [2011]; Panagiotou v Samaritan Vil., Inc., 66 AD3d 979, 980 [2009]). “[T]o obtain relief from the dictates of a conditional order that will preclude a party from submitting evidence in support of a claim or defense, the defaulting party must demonstrate (1) a reasonable excuse for the failure to produce the requested items and (2) the existence of a meritorious claim or defense” (Gibbs v St. 2015Plaintiff also failed to show the existence of a meritorious claim (see Gibbs, 16 NY3d at 80 ). | 15 | 29 |
Mjahdi v. Maguiregreen2 sentences2010Since McGown failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether he sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519, 520 [2007]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]). 2010To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949 [2008]; Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]; Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864, 865 [2005]; Dinstber v Fludd, 2 AD3d 670, 671 [2003]). | 7 | 11 |
Abel v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2025Additionally, "[a] party seeking to vacate a judgment of default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must show a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense" ( Abel v Estate of Collins , 73 AD3d 1423, 1425 [2010]; see Wade v Village of Whitehall , 46 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2007]; Nilt, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles , 35 AD3d 937, 938 [2006]). 2018Turning to the merits, a party seeking to vacate a default judgment must show a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense to the action ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v Impressive Auto Ctr., Inc. , 80 AD3d 861, 862 [2011]; Abel v Estate of Collins , 73 AD3d 1423, 1424 [2010]). | 7 | 7 |
Nilt, Inc. v. New York State Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2025Additionally, "[a] party seeking to vacate a judgment of default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must show a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense" ( Abel v Estate of Collins , 73 AD3d 1423, 1425 [2010]; see Wade v Village of Whitehall , 46 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2007]; Nilt, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles , 35 AD3d 937, 938 [2006]). 2013Accordingly, we need not decide whether defendants established the existence of a meritorious defense (see Wadsworth v Sweet, 106 AD3d at 1434; State of New York v Neglia, 99 AD3d at 1138 ; Nilt, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 35 AD3d 937, 938 [2006]). | 5 | 5 |
Roussodimou v. Zafiriadisgreen2 sentences2007To vacate its default in appearing for trial, the defendant Tulger Contracting Corp. (hereinafter the defendant), was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]). 2003It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512 [1998]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599 [1994]). | 4 | 9 |
Juseinoski v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2010Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to compel the plaintiff to ac cept its late answer, since it failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see Baldwin v Mateogarcia, 57 AD3d 594, 595 [2008]; Cortlandt Healthcare, LLC v Gantt, 54 AD3d 799, 800 [2008]; Lipp v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 AD3d at 649-650 ; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d at 357-358 ). 2010In opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion and in support of their application, inter alia, to deem the proposed answer to have been served, the defendants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Miller v Ateres Shlomo, LLC, 49 AD3d 612, 613 [2008]; Lipp v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 AD3d 649 [2006]; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 356 [2005]; Curran v Graf, 13 AD3d 409 [2004]; Ennis v Lema, 305 AD2d 632, 633 [2003]). | 4 | 7 |
Thompson v. Steuben Realty Corp.green2 sentences2010To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949 [2008]; Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]; Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864, 865 [2005]; Dinstber v Fludd, 2 AD3d 670, 671 [2003]). 2008To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based upon a failure to appear or timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Miller v Ateres Shlomo, LLC, 49 AD3d 612 [2008]; Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067 [2005]; Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864, 865 [2005]; Dinstber v Fludd, 2 AD3d 670, 671 [2003]). | 4 | 5 |
Levi v. Levigreen2 sentences2016In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to consider whether tenant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense ( see Levi v Levi , 46 AD3d 519 [2007]). 2010Since McGown failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether he sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519, 520 [2007]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]). | 3 | 6 |
Young v. Monroe County Clerk's Officegreen2 sentences2022Barnabas Hosp. , 16 NY3d 74, 80 [2010]; see Foster v Dealmaker, SLS, LLC , 63 AD3d 1640 , 1641 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 702 [2010]; Koski v Ryder Truck , 244 AD2d 872, 872 [4th Dept 1997]). 2012Because the preclusion order is in effect, plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and defendant is therefore entitled to dismissal of the action against him (see Foster, 63 AD3d at 1641). | 3 | 4 |
Buywise Holding, LLC v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2024Defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default or the existence of a meritorious defense ( see CPLR 3215; Buywise Holding, LLC v Harris , 31 AD3d 681, 683 [2d Dept 2006]). 2024Defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default or the existence of a meritorious defense ( see CPLR 3215; Buywise Holding, LLC v Harris , 31 AD3d 681, 683 [2d Dept 2006]). | 3 | 3 |
| Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. Impressive Auto Center, Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
| Passeri v. Tomlinsgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Wadsworth v. Sweetgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Rutnik & Corr CPA's, P.C. v. Guptill Farms, Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
| Gradaille v. City of New Yorkgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Dinstber v. Fluddgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Genesee Management, Inc. v. Barrettegreen | 3 | 3 |
| Atwater v. Macegreen | 3 | 3 |
| Donley v. Gateway 2000, Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
A & J Concrete Corp. v. Arkergreen2 sentences2005While a verified answer may be accepted in lieu of an affidavit of merit (see CPLR 105 [u]; A & J Concrete Corp. v Arker, 54 NY2d 870, 872 [1981]), the defendant’s answer, which was verified only by an attorney who had no personal knowledge of the facts of this case, was insufficient to establish the existence of a meritorious defense (see Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., supra). 2000The Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of the Incorporated Village of Hempstead to vacate its default, as it demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, A & J Concrete Corp. v Arker, 54 NY2d 870 ; Stone v County of Nassau, 272 AD2d 392 ; Matter of Long Is. | 2 | 5 |
Dominguez v. Cariosciagreen2 sentences2010Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143 [1986]; Mann-Tell Realty Corp. v Cappadora Realty Corp., 184 AD2d 497, 498 [1992]), she failed to demonstrate either that she did not receive notice of the action in time to defend, or the existence of a meritorious defense (see Taylor v Saal, 4 AD3d 467 [2004]; Dominguez v Carioscia, 1 AD3d 396, 397 [2003]; 96 Pierrepont v Mauro, 304 AD2d 631 [2003]; Waldon v Plotkin, 303 AD2d 581 [2003]; Ralph DiMaio Woodworking Co. v Ameribuild Constr. 2008“A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense” (Dominguez v Carioscia, 1 AD3d 396, 397 [2003]; see Kaplinsky v Mazor, 307 AD2d 916 [2003]; O’Leary v Noutsis, 303 AD2d 664 [2003]; Silverman v Deutsch, 283 AD2d 478 [2001]). | 2 | 4 |
| Wade v. Village of Whitehallgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bank of N.Y. v. Richardsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hayes v. Village of Middleburghgreen | 2 | 2 |
| In re the Claim of Berkmanngreen | 2 | 2 |
| Wei Hong Hu v. Sadiqigreen | 2 | 2 |
Parker v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2025 Discussion Defendants· Motion to Vacate (Motion Sequence Three) It is well settled that a party seeking to vacate a default "must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim" (Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310, 310 [2d Dept 2000] [citations omitted]; see CPLR 5015 [a] [1 ]). 2008“A party seeking to be relieved of its default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599 ).” (Eretz Funding v Shalosh Assoc., 266 AD2d 184, 185 [2d Dept 1999].) “It is axiomatic that a court may vacate a default upon a showing by the movant of both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Katsnelson v ELRAC, Inc., 304 AD2d 619 [2003]; Matter of Gam bardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310 [2000]). | 1 | 12 |
Gurreri v. Village of Briarcliff Manorgreen2 sentences2005Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. “[A] defendant seeking to successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the failure to serve an answer must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his [or her] delay and the existence of a meritorious defense” (Beresford v Waheed, 288 AD2d 170 [2001]; see also Gurreri v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 AD2d 508 [1998]). 2003In order to successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based upon the failure to timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Gurreri v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 AD2d 508 [1998]). | 1 | 9 |
Kaplinsky v. Mazorgreen2 sentences2009A defendant seeking to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672 [2006]; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823 [2005]; Kaplinsky v Mazor, 307 AD2d 916 [2003]). 2008A defendant seeking to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823 [2005]; Weinberger v Judlau Contr., 2 AD3d 631 [2003]; Kaplinsky v Mazor, 307 AD2d 916 [2003]). | 1 | 8 |
Giovanelli v. Riveragreen2 sentences2023To be sure, to preclude the entry of a default judgment, the opponent must proffer a reasonable excuse for failing to timely answer or appear, the existence of a meritorious defense to this action, and that any delay in answering or appearing has not prejudiced plaintiff ( Buywise Holding, LLC at 683; Giovanelli at 616). 2010To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949 [2008]; Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]; Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864, 865 [2005]; Dinstber v Fludd, 2 AD3d 670, 671 [2003]). | 1 | 6 |
Krieger v. Cohangreen2 sentences2009A defendant seeking to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672 [2006]; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823 [2005]; Kaplinsky v Mazor, 307 AD2d 916 [2003]). 2009In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether Pistilli sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d at 1068 ; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823 [2005]). | 1 | 6 |
Segovia v. Delcon Construction Corp.green2 sentences2010Corp., 43 AD3d at 1144 ; American Shoring, Inc. v D.C.A. 2010Corp., 43 AD3d at 1144 ; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]; American Shoring, Inc. v D.C.A. | 1 | 5 |
Hegarty v. Balleegreen2 sentences2007As the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their delay, we need not address whether they established the existence of a meritorious defense (see Hegarty v Bailee, 18 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]). 2005In order to avoid the entry of a default judgment upon their failure to appear or answer, the appellants were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864 [2005]; Hegarty v Ballee, 18 AD3d 706 [2005]; Bergdoll v Pentecoste, 17 AD3d 613 [2005]; Pampalone v Giant Bldg. | 1 | 4 |
Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co.green2 sentences2010Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143 [1986]; Mann-Tell Realty Corp. v Cappadora Realty Corp., 184 AD2d 497, 498 [1992]), she failed to demonstrate either that she did not receive notice of the action in time to defend, or the existence of a meritorious defense (see Taylor v Saal, 4 AD3d 467 [2004]; Dominguez v Carioscia, 1 AD3d 396, 397 [2003]; 96 Pierrepont v Mauro, 304 AD2d 631 [2003]; Waldon v Plotkin, 303 AD2d 581 [2003]; Ralph DiMaio Woodworking Co. v Ameribuild Constr. 2005Co., 67 NY2d 138 [1986]; Dominguez v Carioscia, 1 AD3d 396 [2003]). | 1 | 4 |
Echevarria v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2009To avoid the adverse impact of that order and the judgment entered thereon, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in providing the records and the existence of a meritorious claim (see Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 AD3d at 751 ; Cenzano v Cenzano, 250 AD2d 568 [1998]). 2007To be relieved of the adverse impact of the conditional order, Bloom was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to comply with the order and the existence of a meritorious claim (see Matter of Denton v City of Mount Vernon, 30 AD3d 600 [2006]; Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 AD3d 750, 751 [2004]). | 1 | 4 |
Wynne v. Wagnergreen2 sentences2001A plaintiff seeking to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Wynne v Wagner, 262 AD2d 556 ; Rock v Schwartz, 244 AD2d 542 ). 2000To vacate a judgment on the ground of excusable default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), a defendant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see, Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310 ; Lovario v Vuotto, 266 AD2d 191 ; Wynne v Wagner, 262 AD2d 556 ). | 1 | 4 |
| Abrahams v. Peddlers Pond Holding Corp.green | 1 | 3 |
| Fiore v. Galanggreen | 1 | 3 |
| Zouev v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Newbeck v. Connecticut General Life Insurancegreen | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gambardella v. Ortov Lighting, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008“A party seeking to be relieved of its default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599 ).” (Eretz Funding v Shalosh Assoc., 266 AD2d 184, 185 [2d Dept 1999].) “It is axiomatic that a court may vacate a default upon a showing by the movant of both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Katsnelson v ELRAC, Inc., 304 AD2d 619 [2003]; Matter of Gam bardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310 [2000]). 2004It is axiomatic that a court may vacate a default upon a showing by the movant of both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Katsnelson v ELRAC, Inc., 304 AD2d 619 [2003]; Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310 [2000]). | 9 | 2001–2008 |
Putney v. Pearlman
neutral
2 sentences2000The plaintiff failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, Thattil v Mondesir, 275 AD2d 408 ; Putney v Pearl-man, 203 AD2d 333 ; DeVito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530, 531 ). 2000The plaintiff proffered a sufficient excuse for his unintentional default under the circumstances, and established the existence of a meritorious claim (see, Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333 ). | 7 | 1994–2007 |
Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven
green
2 sentences1999In order to avoid the adverse impact of the order, therefore, 21st Avenue was required to demonstrate an excusable default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, Felicciardi v Town of Brookhaven, 205 AD2d 495 ). 1999In order to avoid the adverse impact of the conditional order of preclusion, the plaintiff was required to either comply with the order or to demonstrate an excusable default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, Mann v Dachel, 210 AD2d 461, 462 ; Felicciardi v Town of Brookhaven, 205 AD2d 495, 496 ). | 6 | 1994–1999 |
Baruch v. Baruch
green
2 sentences2007Nevertheless, it is still incumbent upon the defendant to show a reasonable excuse for the default as well as the existence of a meritorious defense (see Wexler v Wexler, supra; Baruch v Baruch, 224 AD2d 649 [1996]; Conner v Conner, supra). 2006Although as a general rule in matrimonial cases the courts have adopted a liberal policy of vacating defaults, it is still incumbent upon the moving party to show a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see Baruch v Baruch, 224 AD2d 649 [1996]). | 5 | 1997–2007 |
Quis v. Bolden
neutral
2 sentences2007The court determined that defendant established a reasonable excuse for the default but denied the motion upon its further determination that defendant failed to make the requisite showing of the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Quis v Bolden, 298 AD2d 375 [2002]). 2005A defendant seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Quis v Bolden, 298 AD2d 375 [2002]; see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Riverhead Sav. | 4 | 2004–2007 |
Linehan v. State
green
2 sentences2004Generally, the determination whether to set aside a default is left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed if there is support in the record (see Gurreri v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 AD2d 508 [1998]; MacMarty, Inc. v Scheller, 201 AD2d 706 [1994]). 2001Generally, the decision as to the setting aside of a default in answering is left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed if there is support in the record (see, Gurreri v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 AD2d 508 ; MacMarty, Inc. v Scheller, 201 AD2d 706 ). | 4 | 1998–2004 |
Miles v. Blue Label Trucking, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiffs to accept its answer because the defendant demonstrated neither a reasonable excuse for its default in answering nor the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708 ; Melish v Melish, 267 AD2d 218 ; Rivera v 999 Realty Mgt., 246 AD2d 637 ; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382 ; Martyn v Jones, 166 AD2d 508 ). 1998In order to successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based upon the failure to serve an answer, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Siu Lung Cheng v Leader Jewelry Corp., 246 AD2d 526 ; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382 ). | 4 | 1998–2001 |
Donovan v. Getty Petroleum Corp.
green
2 sentences1997“It is well settled that in order for plaintiff! ] to avoid the adverse impact of an order of preclusion, it is incumbent upon [him] to demonstrate an excusable default and the existence of a meritorious claim” (Donovan v Getty Petroleum Corp., 174 AD2d 706, 707 ; see also, Tolliver v County of Nassau, 231 AD2d 708 ; Mann v Dachel, 210 AD2d 461, 462 ; Felicciardi v Town of Brookhaven, 205 AD2d 495, 496 , lv denied 85 NY2d 810 ; Price v Salvo, 203 AD2d 349 ; Clanton v Vagianellis, 192 AD2d 943, 944 ). 1994It is well established that in order for the plaintiffs to avoid the adverse impact of an order of preclusion, it was incumbent upon them to demonstrate an excusable default and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, Becerril v Skate Way Roller Rink, 184 AD2d 365 ; Donovan v Getty Petroleum Corp., 174 AD2d 706 ; White v Leonard, 140 AD2d 518 ). | 4 | 1994–1997 |
| Fortune Limousine Service, Inc. v. Nextel Communications green | 3 | 2009–2010 |
| Ogazi v. Ogazi green | 3 | 2009–2010 |
| Incorporated Village of Hempstead v. Jablonsky green | 3 | 2002–2010 |
| Fennell v. Mason green | 3 | 1994–2008 |
| Stewart v. City of New York neutral | 3 | 2004–2006 |
| Long Island Diagnostic Imaging, P. C. v. Stony Brook Diagnostic Associates green | 3 | 2003–2006 |
| Manigat v. Louis green | 3 | 2001–2005 |
| Kolajo v. City of New York green | 3 | 2000–2003 |
| Town of Bedford v. Peltz green | 3 | 2002–2003 |
| Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School District green | 3 | 2000–2002 |
| Dash v. Dash green | 3 | 1994–2001 |
| Rock v. Schwartz green | 3 | 1998–2001 |
| Snyder v. Perez green | 3 | 1998–2000 |
| Price v. Salvo green | 3 | 1994–1997 |
| FID. & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. Arthur Andersen & Co. green | 3 | 1985–1994 |
| Becerril v. Skate Way Roller Rink, Inc. green | 3 | 1994–1994 |
| Wall v. Bennett green | 3 | 1977–1986 |
| Anderson v. Ariel Services, Inc. neutral | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Neglia green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Keller v. Merchant Capital Portfolios, LLC green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Pugliese v. Mondello green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| Nurse v. Figeroux & Associates neutral | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| Melish v. Melish green | 2 | 2001–2010 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.