From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cohen v. Schupler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 2008
51 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 2006-10183, 2007-07222.

May 13, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated October 6, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against him upon his default in answering and denied his cross motion for leave to serve a late answer, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated May 21, 2007, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to the prior motion and his cross motion.

J. Ceasar Galarza, Massapequa, N.Y. (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), for appellant.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Covello, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ.


Ordered that the order dated October 6, 2006, is reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant upon his default in answering is denied, and the defendant's cross motion for leave to serve a late answer is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 21, 2007, is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the order dated October 6, 2006; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability since the plaintiff failed to present proof of the facts constituting the claim ( see CPLR 3215 [f]). Neither the conclusory allegations of the complaint nor the affidavit of merit set forth the facts constituting the alleged negligence sufficiently to support a default judgment ( see Beaton v Transit Facility Corp., 14 AD3d 637). In contrast, the defendant's cross motion for leave to serve a late answer demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense ( cf. Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545).


Summaries of

Cohen v. Schupler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 2008
51 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Cohen v. Schupler

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG COHEN, Respondent, v. PHILLIP SCHUPLER, Doing Business as P.M.G…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 13, 2008

Citations

51 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4458
856 N.Y.S.2d 870

Citing Cases

Elite Technical Servs., Inc. v. Meyers

proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting party's default in answering or…

Taft v. Mehanata NYC, Inc.

Rather, the plaintiff's affidavit constitutes only an allegation that he was involved in an incident at 113…