From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

NY SMS Waterproofing, Inc. v. Congregation Machne Chaim, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 2011
81 A.D.3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-03931.

February 1, 2011.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated March 17, 2010, as denied that branch of its motion which was to vacate a judgment of the same court entered October 20, 2009, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 19, 2009, granting the plaintiffs unopposed motion for leave to enter a judgment upon its failure to appear or answer the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $231,937.24.

Weinstein, Kaplan Cohen, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Robert N. Cohen of counsel), for appellant.

Rivelis, Pawa Blum, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Howard Blum of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Belen, Austin and Cohen, JJ.


Ordered that the order dated March 17, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To vacate the judgment entered upon an order granting the plaintiffs unopposed motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendant's failure to appear or answer the complaint, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default in opposing the motion and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Campbell Jarvis v Alves, 68 AD3d 701; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392). The defendant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its failure to oppose the plaintiffs motion ( see Campbell-Jarvis v Alves, 68 AD3d 701; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d at 392). In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion ( see Abdul v Hirschfield, 71 AD3d 707, 709; Segovia v Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d 1143, 1144; American Shoring, Inc. v D.C.A. Constr, Ltd., 15 AD3d 431). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the judgment.


Summaries of

NY SMS Waterproofing, Inc. v. Congregation Machne Chaim, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 2011
81 A.D.3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

NY SMS Waterproofing, Inc. v. Congregation Machne Chaim, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NY SMS WATERPROOFING, INC., Respondent, v. CONGREGATION MACHNE CHAIM…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2011

Citations

81 A.D.3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 661
917 N.Y.S.2d 869

Citing Cases

Bethune v. Prioleau

Ordered that the order dated December 14, 2009, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion…

Thalle Indus., Inc. v. Holubar

To vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon her failure to oppose the motion of the…