We are often struck by the human element and how it interacts with the institutional element of litigation. Schedules are packed, attorneys have many cases, court dates go unrecorded, attorneys just don’t show up for conferences, and yet the cases go on. We believe that even in a successful case for one side or the other, a detailed inspection of the file or the record will demonstrate multiple mistakes by the winner. In other words, there are often departures without proximity.

Even in legal malpractice litigation, where the stakes are at least conceptually raised, mistakes happen. Here, in Hudson v Gouldbourne ; 2011 NY Slip Op 03548 ; Decided on April 26, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department we see a default, a motion for a default judgment, a judgment and now, a sanction.

"An order relieving a party from a default may be conditioned on payment of a monetary sanction pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) (see Gissaro v Lessne, 300 AD2d 281, 282; Du Jour v DeJean, 247 AD2d 370, 371; Workman v Amato, 231 AD2d 627, 628; Coven v Trust Co. of N.J., 225 AD2d 576; Sasson v Sasson, 134 AD2d 491). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction in the sum of $3,000 as a condition to granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment against her on the issue of liability. "