THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0425, Peter Boraczek v. Robert Shone, the 

court on October 23, 2023, issued the following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted 

on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See

Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The defendant, Robert Shone, appeals orders of the 

Circuit Court entering default in favor of the plaintiff, Peter Boraczek (Zaino, 

J.), for failure to attend the pretrial hearing on the plaintiff’s small claim, see

Dist. Div. R. 4.4(b), and denying the defendant’s motion to reconsider the 

default (Steckowych, J.). We construe the defendant’s brief to include his July 

27, 2023 submission arguing that, because he established that he was under 

military orders to report for military training outside of New Hampshire at the 

time of the pretrial hearing, the trial court erred by denying his motion to 

reconsider. We agree, and reverse and remand.

District Division Rule 4.4(b) provides: “Attendance at the pre-trial 

hearing [in a small claim case] shall be mandatory. . . . Failure by either party 

to attend the pre-trial hearing shall result in a judgment in favor of the other 

party. . . . A default judgment shall not be stricken except upon a finding of 

good cause by the court.” Dist. Div. R. 4.4(b). The “good cause” standard does 

not bar relief from all consequences of human neglect, and “is equivalent to 

what is reasonable and just.” In re D.O., 173 N.H. 48, 60 (2020) (quotation 

omitted). “In contexts other than those involving statutes of limitations, we 

have emphasized justice over procedural technicalities” when applying the good 

cause standard. Anna H. Cardone Revocable Trust v. Cardone, 160 N.H. 521, 

525 (2010). We will not disturb the trial court’s decision on a request to strike 

a default unless the trial court erred as a matter of law or unsustainably 

exercised its discretion. See Brito v. Ryan, 151 N.H. 635, 637 (2005).

In this case, the trial court entered default in favor of the plaintiff based 

upon the defendant’s failure to attend the pretrial hearing on February 28, 

2023. On March 1, the defendant moved to reconsider, asserting, with the 

express “understand[ing] that making a false statement in this pleading may 

subject [the defendant] to criminal penalties,” see Dist. Div. R. 1.8(B), that on 

February 21, 2023, he “received last minute military orders . . . to report out of 

the state for military training starting February 26, 2023 through March 10, 

2023.” The defendant additionally submitted under seal, as “proof [of his] 

inability to appear on the scheduled date,” a copy of his military orders, which 

demonstrated that on February 21, 2023, the defendant was ordered to report 

to a military base in another state with a duty date of February 26, 2023, and 
2

warned that “failure to comply with this order violates UCMJ.” (Capitalization 

omitted.) The trial court nevertheless denied the motion to reconsider without 

providing any reasons for denying it. Under the circumstances, we conclude 

that the defendant necessarily established good cause to strike the default, and 

that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by denying his 

motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the defendant’s 

motion to reconsider, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 

order.

Reversed and remanded.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., 

concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,

 Clerk