- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Fagan v. State of New York
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03425
Background
Claimant Susan Fagan commenced a claim in the Court of Claims to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while riding her bicycle on a sidewalk in the Town of Huntington. The State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Claimant’s counsel failed to oppose the motion, and the Court of Claims (Carmen Victoria St. George, J.) granted the State’s unopposed motion in an order dated May 16, 2024.
Claimant subsequently moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the order, citing law office failure as the excuse for the default. The Court of Claims denied the motion in an order dated August 16, 2024. Claimant appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of claimant’s motion to vacate, with costs. The Court applied the two-prong test for vacatur of a default: the movant must demonstrate (1) a reasonable excuse for the default and (2) a potentially meritorious opposition to the underlying motion.
The Court found that claimant’s proffered excuse of law office failure was “vague, conclusory, and constituted mere neglect” and therefore did not establish a reasonable excuse. The panel emphasized that while courts may excuse law office failure, such failure “should not be excused where a default results not from an isolated, inadvertent mistake, but from repeated neglect, or where allegations of law office failure are vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated.” Because claimant failed the first prong, the Court did not reach the question of whether she had a meritorious opposition to the summary judgment motion.
Takeaways
This case is a stark reminder that “law office failure” is not a magic incantation that automatically excuses a default. The excuse must be specific, detailed, and attributable to an isolated, inadvertent mistake rather than a pattern of neglect. Vague assertions that counsel failed to respond, without explaining the specific circumstances that prevented timely opposition, will not satisfy the reasonable excuse requirement. Practitioners must maintain robust calendaring and docketing systems to prevent defaults, as the consequences can be irreversible.
Why It Matters
For litigators practicing in the Court of Claims and appellate courts, this decision serves as a cautionary tale about the high standard for vacating defaults. The two-prong test is strictly applied, and failure on either prong is fatal to the motion. Attorneys who miss deadlines must be prepared to provide specific, documented explanations of what went wrong—not general assertions of office failure. The decision also illustrates that the failure to oppose a summary judgment motion can result in the permanent loss of a client’s claims, even where the underlying merits may have been strong.