599 Ralph Avenue Development, LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2006-01022. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 8916,34 A.D.3d 726,825 N.Y.S.2d 129 |
| Parties | 599 RALPH AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Respondent, v. 799 STERLING INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon the plaintiff's submissions of proof of service of the summons and complaint, a factually-detailed verified complaint, and an affirmation from its attorney regarding the defendant's default in appearing and answering (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]). The defendant's contention that it was not properly served pursuant to CPLR 311 (a) (1) was not raised in opposition to the plaintiff's motion and therefore, may not be considered for the first time on appeal (see Matter of Lewin v Lewin, 124 AD2d 730, 731 [1986]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept its answer since the defendant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 3012 [d]; Elite Limousine Plus v Allcity Ins. Co., 266 AD2d 259 [1999]; Gurreri v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 AD2d 508 [1998]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the answer was due more than one month before the date it was actually served (see CPLR 320 [a]). Furthermore, the defendant's verified answer failed to assert any facts sufficient to establish the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see McCaskill v City of New York, 192 AD2d 647 [1993]; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645, 646 [1990]; Stewart v Warren, 134 AD2d 585 [1987]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C & H Import & Export, Inc. v. MNA Global, Inc.
...did not establish a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve an answer ( see 599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129; Elite Limousine Plus v. Allcity Ins. Co., 266 A.D.2d 259, 698 N.Y.S.2d 251). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly grante......
-
Miterko v. Peaslee
...( see CPLR 3215[f];Levine v. Forgotson's Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 552, 553, 840 N.Y.S.2d 598; 599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129). The plaintiffs' initial moving papers for leave to enter a default judgment were predicated solely upon t......
-
Valiotis v. Psaroudis
...default ( see CPLR 3215[f]; Trini Realty Corp. v. Fulton Ctr. LLC, 53 A.D.3d 479, 861 N.Y.S.2d 743; 599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129; Lipp v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 A.D.3d 649, 650, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671). In opposing the plaintiff's motion, t......
-
Maspeth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McGown
...Moriano v. Provident N.Y. Bancorp, 71 A.D.3d 747, 747, 899 N.Y.S.2d 246;909 N.Y.S.2d 404599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court ( see......
-
A nullity or not? The status of a default judgment entered absent compliance with CPLR 3215(f).
...omitted)); see Gross v. Kail, 70 A.D.3d 997, 893 N.Y.S.2d 891 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010); 599 Ralph Ave. Dev. v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129 (App. Div. 2d Dep't (14) N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3215(f) ("On any application for judgment by default, the applicant shall file ... proof ......