Opinion
2013-05-9
Janice LEE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 215 WEST 88 STREET HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Bierman & Palitz LLP, New York (Lauren M. Reiff of counsel), for appellant. Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, Tarrytown (Michael J. Lenoff of counsel), for respondents.
Bierman & Palitz LLP, New York (Lauren M. Reiff of counsel), for appellant. Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, Tarrytown (Michael J. Lenoff of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered June 28, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to vacate their default in not timely serving their answer, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for a default judgment and for injunctive relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants' motion and denying plaintiff's cross motion as to defendants' default. Defendants' delay in appearing was brief, the default was not willful, there was no evidence that plaintiff was prejudiced, and defendants demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see D & R Global Selections, S.L. v. Bodega Olegario Falcón Piñeiro, 90 A.D.3d 403, 934 N.Y.S.2d 19 [1st Dept. 2011] ).
The court also properly denied plaintiff's cross motion for injunctive relief requiring defendants to perform certain work in her apartment. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was likely to succeed on the merits of her claims, that she would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and that a balance of the equities tips in her favor ( see generally Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 800 N.Y.S.2d 48, 833 N.E.2d 191 [2005];see alsoCPLR 6301), or that the granting of the requested relief was essential to maintain the status quo ( see Second on Second Café, Inc. v. Hing Sing Trading, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 255, 264, 884 N.Y.S.2d 353 [1st Dept. 2009] ).