From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stern Keiser Panken & Wohl, LLP v. Hartley Pers. Admin. Servs., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts
Jan 24, 2012
950 N.Y.S.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

No. 2010–2920 W C.

2012-01-24

STERN KEISER PANKEN & WOHL, LLP, Respondent,— v. HARTLEY PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Appellant.


Appeal from an order of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Brian Hansbury, J.), entered July 26, 2010. The order denied defendant's motion to open its default.
Present: LaCAVA, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, defendant's motion to open its default is granted and the matter is remitted to the City Court for all further proceedings.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the sum of $8,250 based on claims of misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. A preliminary conference was scheduled, and a notice of the conference was mailed by the clerk of the City Court to defendant's counsel's office. However, defendant failed to appear or otherwise contact the court. In an order dated June 15, 2010, the City Court found defendant in default for failing to appear at the preliminary conference and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $8,250. In support of defendant's motion to open its default, its counsel claimed that he had never received any notice of the scheduled conference and had, therefore, been unaware that he was required to be in attendance. Defendant further argued that its verified answer had set forth several meritorious defenses.

A defendant seeking to open a default is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense to the action ( seeCPLR 5015[a][1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138 [1986] ). Under the circumstances presented, we find that defendant offered a reasonable excuse for defaulting and a meritorious defense to the action.

Accordingly, the order denying defendant's motion to open its default is reversed, the motion is granted and the matter is remitted to the City Court for all further proceedings.

LaCAVA, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stern Keiser Panken & Wohl, LLP v. Hartley Pers. Admin. Servs., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts
Jan 24, 2012
950 N.Y.S.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Stern Keiser Panken & Wohl, LLP v. Hartley Pers. Admin. Servs., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:STERN KEISER PANKEN & WOHL, LLP, Respondent,— v. HARTLEY PERSONNEL…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts

Date published: Jan 24, 2012

Citations

950 N.Y.S.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Citing Cases

Samuel v. Felicia Castillo, Humberto Olivero Ramos, Abc Corp.

Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that he has a potentially meritorious claim (see Hertz Vehicles, LLC v…