Case Name: DANA v. THAW et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-04-10
Citations: 109 N.Y.S. 826
Docket Number: 
Parties: DANA v. THAW et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 109
Pages: 826–827

Head Matter:
DANA v. THAW et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
April 10, 1908.)
1. Judgment—Default—Application to Vacate—Mebits.
An application to vacate a default judgment was improperly granted, where the papers did not show any real or meritorious defense to the action.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 30, Judgment, §§ 292-295.]
2. Motions—Denial—Leave to Renew.
Where an order granting a motion to set aside a default was reversed, with leave to renew on proper papers, because of the absence of a showing of merits, and a second application was denied because of the same defect, the court should not have again granted leave to make a third motion for the same relief.
Dayton, J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by Charles E. Dana against Mary C. Thaw and another. From an order of the New York City Court, denying defendants’ motion to open their default, defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.
See 56 Misc. Rep. 612, 107 N. Y. Supp. 870.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and SEABURY and DAYTON, JJ.
A. Russell Peabody (George Boochever, of counsel), for appellants.
Adam Frank (Leon Lauterstein, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The action is for professional services as expert alienist. On October 11, 1907, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff upon inquest. Motion was made to open defendants' default and vacate the judgment. The motion was granted, and appeal taken to this court, and heard at December term, 1907. We reversed the order, and directed that motion be denied, with leave to renew on proper papers. See opinion by Ford, J., page 22 of record. A second motion to vacate the judgment was heard by Mr. Justice Conlan, and denied, with leave to renew.
The fatal obstacle to defendants' efforts to vacate the judgment is the absence from all the papers, now or heretofore before the court, of any real or meritorious defense. The court might very well have excused the default, but the failure to disclose any defense prohibited the court from extending any favor to the defendants. Clews v. Peper, 112 App. Div. 430, 98 N. Y. Supp. 404. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs, except as to the provision granting leave to make a third motion, which should be stricken out.
Order modified, by striking out the provision for renewal, and, as modified, affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements.