Majority
— Order,
We note, however, that the statutory enactment, which was intended to relieve the oftentimes harsh results which flowed from Barasch v Micucci ( 49 NY2d 594 , supra), does not give a defaulting party carte blanche to be excused from law office failure, nor does it relieve that party from explaining the reasons for its default. The basic tenet of Sortino v Fisher ( 20 AD2d 25 ), requiring the defaulting party to give a reasonable excuse for its delay and establishing the merit of its case, is still viable (Luksic v Killmer, 100 AD2d 864 ; Barnard v Tops Friendly Mkts., 99 AD2d 654 ). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, McLaughlin, J. — dismiss action.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Green and Schnepp, JJ.
Cases cited
- Barasch v. Micucci 49 NY2d 594 p. 1054
- Sortino v. Fisher 20 AD2d 25 p. 1054