Opinion
2016-08001, Index No. 12666/11.
10-25-2017
555 PROSPECT ASSOCIATES, LLC, appellant, v. GREENWICH DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT GROUP CORP., also known as Greenwich Design & Development Group, Inc., et al., defendants.
Valiotis & Novella PLLC, Long Island City, NY (Anthony J. Novella and Katie L. Bireley of counsel), for appellant.
Valiotis & Novella PLLC, Long Island City, NY (Anthony J. Novella and Katie L. Bireley of counsel), for appellant.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), entered July 1, 2016, which denied its unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the dismissal of the complaint and to restore the action to the conference calendar.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the dismissal of the complaint and to restore the action to the conference calendar is granted.
In order to vacate its default in appearing at a call of the compliance conference calendar, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; 22 NYCRR 202.27 [a]; Polsky v. Simon, 145 A.D.3d 693, 693, 43 N.Y.S.3d 101 ; Foley Inc. v. Metropolis Superstructures, Inc., 130 A.D.3d 680, 680, 11 N.Y.S.3d 873 ). "Whether an excuse is reasonable is a determination within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" ( Walker v. Mohammed, 90 A.D.3d 1034, 1034, 934 N.Y.S.2d 854 ; see GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Guccione, 127 A.D.3d 1136, 9 N.Y.S.3d 83 ). Where, as here, a party asserts law office failure, it must provide " ‘a detailed and credible explanation of the default’ " ( GMAC
Mtge., LLC v. Guccione, 127 A.D.3d at 1138, 9 N.Y.S.3d 83, quoting People's United Bank v. Latini Tuxedo Mgt., LLC, 95 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 944 N.Y.S.2d 909 ), as conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are not sufficient (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Barr, 139 A.D.3d 937, 938, 30 N.Y.S.3d 576 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini, 84 A.D.3d 789, 789, 921 N.Y.S.2d 643 ).
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in finding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for missing the calendar call on January 15, 2015. The plaintiff submitted an affirmation of counsel proffering a detailed and credible explanation of the law office failure leading to the default in appearing. Accordingly, the plaintiff provided a reasonable excuse for failing to appear (see Madonna Mgt. Servs., Inc. v. R.S. Naghavi M.D. PLLC, 123 A.D.3d 986, 987–988, 999 N.Y.S.2d 858 ; 330 Wythe Ave. Assoc., LLC v. ABR Constr., Inc., 55 A.D.3d 599, 864 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; Tyberg v. Neustein, 21 A.D.3d 896, 800 N.Y.S.2d 507 ; Henry v. Kuveke, 9 A.D.3d 476, 479, 781 N.Y.S.2d 114 ; Orwell Bldg. Corp. v. Bessaha, 5 A.D.3d 573, 773 N.Y.S.2d 126 ; Louis v. Louis, 231 A.D.2d 612, 613, 647 N.Y.S.2d 819 ). The plaintiff also demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action (see D & W Constr. v. Israel, 54 A.D.3d 889, 864 N.Y.S.2d 146 ; Birky v.
Katsilogiannis, 37 A.D.3d 631, 830 N.Y.S.2d 753 ; Vollaro v. Bevilacqua, 33 A.D.3d 910, 823 N.Y.S.2d 204 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion to vacate the dismissal of the complaint and to restore the action to the conference calendar.