Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 14, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2008-622 K C.
Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. a/a/o GEORGE IASHVILLI, JOSE TAVARES, DAVINE SMITH, EDWARD RABAYEV and JOHNIE FLEMING, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J.
Silver, J.), dated September 13, 2007. The order denied a motion by defendant seeking to vacate
a default judgment and compel plaintiff to accept its late answer, and for sanctions.
Order modified by providing that so much of the motion by defendant as sought to vacate the default judgment and to compel plaintiff to accept its late answer is granted, and the answer annexed to defendant's moving papers is deemed served upon plaintiff; as so modified, affirmed without costs.
In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved to vacate the
default judgment entered following its failure to answer, to compel plaintiff to accept its late
answer, and for sanctions. The Civil Court denied the motion, finding that the affirmation of
defendant's attorney was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default. The instant
appeal by defendant ensued.
A party seeking vacatur of a default judgment must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse
for its default in appearing and answering the complaint, and a meritorious defense to the action
(see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67
NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). The affidavits of the claims representatives, which defendant submitted
in support of its motion, suffice to establish a reasonable excuse for defendant's relatively short
delay in answering the complaint. Moreover, plaintiff has not indicated that it was prejudiced by
the delay. Furthermore, defendant made a prima facie showing of a potentially meritorious
defense as to whether plaintiff is ineligible to receive reimbursement of no-fault benefits (see
State Farm [*2]Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313
[2005]). Accordingly, the branches of defendant's motion seeking to vacate the default judgment
and to compel plaintiff to accept its late answer are granted.
In our opinion, the record does not support the imposition of sanctions against plaintiff. We thus leave undisturbed the Civil Court's denial of the branch of defendant's motion seeking sanctions.
Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 14, 2009
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.