Case Name: George A. Weissblum et al., Appellants, v. Mostafzafan Foundation of New York, Formerly Known as the Pahlevi Foundation, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1983-09-07
Citations: 60 N.Y.2d 637
Docket Number: 
Parties: George A. Weissblum et al., Appellants, v Mostafzafan Foundation of New York, Formerly Known as the Pahlevi Foundation, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 637–639

Head Matter:
George A. Weissblum et al., Appellants, v Mostafzafan Foundation of New York, Formerly Known as the Pahlevi Foundation, Respondent.
Submitted July 11, 1983;
decided September 7, 1983
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Stuart B. Newman and Vincent J. Syracuse for appellants.
Peter I. Livingston and Jill S. Levin for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Defendant seeks to reargue our recent decision (59 NY2d 815) in this case whereby we decided that the rule of Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594) and Eaton v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (56 NY2d 900) should be applied to preclude defendant from vacating a default judgment entered against it for failing, as a result of law office failure, to timely file an answer.
Subsequent to our disposition of the liability question in this case, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law a new section 2005 to the CPLR which allows the lower courts to exercise discretion "to excuse delay or default resulting from law office failure." (L 1983, ch 318.) That statute, by its terms, was made applicable to every action or proceeding still pending before a court. Although we previously disposed of the liability question in this matter, the issue of damages is yet to be resolved at trial. Consequently, the "action still is pending before a court" and CPLR 2005 must, therefore, be applied.
While both courts below decided that defendant's default was excusable, they did so without considering the requirements of CPLR 3012 (subd [d]) and 5015 (subd [a]) as mandated by CPLR 2005.
Accordingly, defendant's motion for reargument should be granted, our previous order and decision should be vacated, and, upon reargument, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that court for the exercise of its discretion under the new legislation.
Motion for reargument granted, this court's order and decision of June 7, 1983 vacated, the remittitur recalled, and, upon reargument, the following determination is substituted therefor: "On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein, and the question certified answered in the negative. Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur."