[DOWNLOAD] "Wu v. Wu" by Queens County New York Supreme Court * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Wu v. Wu
- Author : Queens County New York Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 08, 2004
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
Defendant seeks an order vacating his default in appearing on the motion which resulted in this courts order of March 29, 2004, alleging that said default was due to law office failure. In considering a motion to set aside a default judgment, particularly on grounds of law office failure, or claims ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel, the court will consider certain factors, including the reasonableness of the excuse, any evidence of willfulness or diligence, any resulting prejudice, and the existence of a meritorious defense. (Vita v Alstom Signaling, 308 AD2d 582 [2003].) In claims of ineffectiveness of counsel, mere vague and unsubstantiated allegations as to law office failure will not suffice. (Eretz Funding v Shalosh Assocs., 266 AD2d 184 [1999].) Moreover, where the court finds that the default was not the result of a single oversight or mistake, but part of an overall pattern of disregard for the court process, relief will be denied. (Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393 [2004].) Here, defendant makes no showing to support his claims against his prior counsel, and, in consideration of his long history of delay in these proceedings, the court finds that defendant has failed to adequately excuse his default. Moreover, defendants affirmation in support of his motion fails to establish a meritorious defense to the underlying moition. (Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra.) Accordingly, the main motion is denied in all respects.