From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinovich v. Commercial Instrumentation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 15, 2000

December 12, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated January 14, 2000, which denied its motion to vacate its default in answering and for leave to interpose an answer, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 27, 2000, which denied its motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument, but which was, in actuality, for reargument.

Harold Solomon, Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Bernard G. Chambers of counsel), for appellant.

Dennis Marc Reisman, Great Neck, N.Y. (Stephanie A. Litsakis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 27, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated January 14, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The defendant's contention that it should have been allowed to defend the action pursuant to CPLR 317 is without merit. The defendant failed to establish that it did not receive actual notice of the summons in time to defend, as required by CPLR 317 (see, Fleetwood Park Corp. v. Jerrick Waterproofing Co., 203 A.D.2d 238). Under the circumstances of this case, to establish entitlement to vacatur of its default, it was necessary for the defendant to establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568). The defendant failed to satisfy this standard.

The defendant's second motion, characterized as one for renewal and reargument, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time it submitted the original motion (see, Bossio v. Fiorillo, 222 A.D.2d 476). Therefore, the motion was in actuality a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable.


Summaries of

Martinovich v. Commercial Instrumentation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Martinovich v. Commercial Instrumentation

Case Details

Full title:SAM MARTINOVICH, RESPONDENT, v. COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC.…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 205

Citing Cases

In re Mtr. of Fotiades

Her assertions that she did not receive notice of the hearing and that the hearing did not even take place…