Judges don't like cases to be won or lost on "default" -- which can be triggered by a party's failure to timely respond to court papers or to appear on a scheduled court date -- and would prefer to have cases heard "on their merits."
When inadvertent or otherwise excusable, and when a meritorious claim or defense has been asserted, judges will often relieve litigants of the consequences of their errors or omissions, subject to compliance with certain conditions (such as the posting of a bond or other undertaking ensuring satisfaction of the underlying obligation in the event it is later determined that relief was improvidently granted by the court). Noncompliance with these requirements could have dire consequences, as was demonstrated in Granibras Granitos Brasileiros, Ltda. v. Farber .
In that case, a litigant apparently "ignored" the time deadlines set by the court to deposit an undertaking. As a result, the Supreme Court rescinded a prior order relieving the defendant of its default and allowed enforcement proceedings -- that is collection of the monies sued for -- to proceed.
The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed on appeal and warned that nothing good can come from disobeying or disregarding a court order. Here's how the court phrased it:
As this Court observed in Hyundai Corp. v Republic of Iraq ... a "court's discretion to relieve a party from a default judgment should not be favorably exercised where, as here, the party has been dilatory in asserting its rights." Moreover, a "certain amount of discretion is reserved to the [motion] court in crafting conditional orders to encourage the cooperation of neglectful parties so that their claims can be litigated on the merits," and a party "ignores such conditional orders at his peril" .... Thus, in addition to showing no basis to vacate the default judgment, this defendant has made no effort to explain his failure to post the undertaking required by the court as a condition of vacating the default.
So, we were wondering with whom does da fault lie?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Granibras Granitos Brasileiros, Ltda. v. Farber