Opinion
No. 16686 Index No. 36402/17E Case No. 2022-00508
11-17-2022
Jennifer Stewart, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Petrolite Incorporated et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Mark A. Bonilla, Bellmore, for appellants. The Licatesi Law Group, LLP, Uniondale (Michael Licatesi of counsel), for respondent.
Mark A. Bonilla, Bellmore, for appellants.
The Licatesi Law Group, LLP, Uniondale (Michael Licatesi of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Kern, J.P., Scarpulla, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2021, which denied defendant Petrolite Incorporated's motion to vacate a prior order, same court (John R. Higgitt, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2019, striking its answer pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of defendant Petrolite Incorporated (Petrolite) to vacate its default, as it failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse (see LePatner & Assoc., LLP v Horowitz, 81 A.D.3d 472 [1st Dept 2011]). Counsel was still representing Petrolite when he failed to appear at two preliminary conferences on its behalf, and he was aware of his obligation to do so. A claim of law office failure should be rejected where "the record shows that defense counsel was fully aware of his obligations and intentionally and repeatedly failed to attend to them" (Imovegreen, LLC v Frantic, LLC, 139 A.D.3d 539 [1st Dept 2016]; see also Agosto v Western Beef Retail, Inc., 175 A.D.3d 1192, 1192 [1st Dept 2019]).
Moreover, Petrolite's new counsel failed to explain the reason for its delay in bringing this motion, nearly 18 months after the default order was entered (see Agosto, 175 A.D.3d 1192; see also Youni Gems Corp. v Bassco Creations Inc., 70 A.D.3d 454 [1st Dept 2010]). In light of Petrolite's failure to provide a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to address whether it had a meritorious defense (see Gonzalez v Praise the Lord Dental, 79 A.D.3d 550 [1st Dept 2010]).