Couteller v. Mamakos, decided yesterday by the N.Y. intermediate appellate court, affirmed a default judgment in favor of a defamation plaintiff (for more on the case, see this post about the initial trial decision):
The court providently exercised its discretion by striking defendant's answer based on her "failure to comply with court orders, in the absence of adequate excuses," which permits an inference of willful and contumacious behavior. The record reflects that defendant failed to attend a status conference, did not meet discovery deadlines, and neglected to communicate with counsel, culminating in counsel's application to be relieved. Defendant failed to take any action in this case for over a year, despite the court's instruction to either retain new counsel or notify the court of her intention to proceed pro se. Defendant failed to appear at a scheduled conference notwithstanding the court's warning that a failure to appear would result in sanctions…. Defendant's willingness to permit this case to "linger for years without resolution," caused prejudice to plaintiff and impaired "the efficient functioning of the courts." …
The sole excuse defendant offered was that she did not timely receive the order which directed her to appear because it was sent to the wrong address. However, the record reflects that, about a month before the conference, defendant's former attorney sent the order via certified mail to the same address defendant provided on her motion to vacate. "A demonstrably false excuse will not justify the vacatur of a default."
