Opinion
Argued November 12, 1999
December 13, 1999
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Dina Bass, Northgate Elec. Corp., Northgate Electric Corp., and Northgate Electric appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feuerstein, J.), dated September 3, 1997, which denied the cross motion of all of the appellants except Northgate Electric to vacate their default in appearing and answering, and (2) an order of the same court, dated August 31, 1998, which denied their motion, denominated one to renew, but which was in actuality one for reargument.
Berkman, Henoch, Peterson Peddy, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Karen A. Foley of counsel), for appellants.
Huston Schuller, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David M. Schuller of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 31, 1998, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal by Northgate Electric is dismissed, as it is not aggrieved by the order dated September 3, 1997 (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that on the appeal of Dina Bass, Northgate Elec. Corp., and Northgate Electric Corp. the order dated September 3, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the cross motion which was to vacate the default of the appellant Dina Bass in appearing and answering. The plaintiff served Bass by substituted service of the summons and complaint upon a co-worker at her place of business and by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the same address (see, CPLR 308[2]). Bass failed to establish that she did not receive actual notice of the action in time to defend, a reasonable excuse for the default, or a meritorious defense. Thus, regardless of whether her motion was deemed made pursuant toCPLR 317 or CPLR 5015, it was properly denied (see, Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138 ;Fleetwood Park Corp. v. Jerrick Waterproofing Co., 203 A.D.2d 238 ;Harbert Offset Corp. v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 174 A.D.2d 650 ; Schiller v. Sunrock Building Corp., 260 A.D.2d 566 [2d Dept., Apr. 19, 1999]).
Moreover, the plaintiff obtained jurisdiction over the corporate appellants by delivery of the summons and complaint to a managing agent at their business address (see, CPLR 311[1]) and by service upon the Secretary of State (see, Business Corporation Law § 306 Bus. Corp.). The corporate appellants failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for their default or a meritorious defense, and thus are not entitled to vacatur of their default (see, Harbert Offset Corp. v. Bowery Sav. Bank, supra).
BRACKEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.