- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Khan v. Santana
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03433
Background
Plaintiff Raymond Khan allegedly was injured in a 2017 motor vehicle collision with a vehicle operated by defendant Nelson Santana. After a prior action was dismissed, plaintiff commenced this second action in December 2020. In June 2022, defendant moved to dismiss under CPLR 3215(c) for abandonment. Although plaintiff submitted opposition papers, his attorney failed to appear at the calendar call. By order dated November 2, 2022, the court granted defendant’s motion dismissing the complaint as abandoned.
Plaintiff moved under CPLR 5015 to vacate the dismissal order. The court granted this unopposed motion in March 2023. Defendant then moved to vacate the March 2023 order, arguing he was entitled to have his default in opposing the vacatur motion excused. Supreme Court, Kings County, granted defendant’s motion to vacate. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order granting defendant’s motion to vacate, with costs. The Court applied the two-prong test under CPLR 5015(a): a party seeking to vacate a default must show both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious position. The determination of whether an 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.”
The Court found that defendant provided an adequate excuse for his default and demonstrated a meritorious basis for opposing the vacatur of the original dismissal order. The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting defendant’s motion.
Takeaways
This procedurally complex case involves a chain of defaults: plaintiff’s attorney failed to appear, leading to dismissal; defendant failed to oppose vacatur, leading to reinstatement; and then defendant successfully moved to undo the reinstatement. The decision highlights the broad discretion trial courts have under CPLR 5015 and the policy preference for resolving cases on the merits—which here cut in favor of the defendant who sought to reinstate the original dismissal. Practitioners should not assume that an unopposed motion for vacatur is immune from subsequent challenge.
Why It Matters
This case warns practitioners that each layer of procedural default can be challenged. A plaintiff whose complaint is dismissed for abandonment, then reinstated by default, may find the reinstatement itself vacated if the opposing party provides a reasonable excuse and meritorious grounds. The decision underscores the importance of diligent case management at every stage and the need to defend favorable procedural orders, not merely obtain them. For defense counsel, it confirms that the failure to initially oppose a vacatur motion does not permanently waive the right to challenge the resulting order.