ADL Constr., LLC v. Chandler

Decision Date04 November 2010
Citation78 A.D.3d 407,909 N.Y.S.2d 908
PartiesADL CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Keith CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant, Ponce DeLeon Bank, Defendant-Respondent, Yehuda Kaploun, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Danzig Fishman & Decea, White Plains (Peter F. Sisca of counsel), for appellant.

James T. Moriarty, New York, for ADL Construction, LLC and Dominick Cicale, respondents.

Codelia & Socorro, P.C., Bronx (Peter R. Shipman of counsel), for Ponce DeLeon Bank, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2009, which denied defendant Chandler's motion to vacate his default in responding to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default ( see CPLR 5015[a][1] ). After his bankruptcy court petition was dismissed, he was obligated to respond to plaintiffs' pending summary judgment motion, to obtain plaintiffs' consent to additional time for his response, or to seek additional time from the court. Defendant did nothing.

The record supports the court's conclusion, in light of defendant's other conduct, including his failure to make any attempt to vacate the default until almost a year later, that defendant's failure to respond tothe motion was willful and calculated to cause delay ( see e.g. Youni Gems Corp. v. Bassco Creations Inc., 70 A.D.3d 454, 896 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2010]; Brown v. Suggs, 38 A.D.3d 329, 832 N.Y.S.2d 36 [2007] ).

There is no evidence to support defendant's claim that his default should have been vacated on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct of an adverse party.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, CATTERSON, DeGRASSE, MANZANET-DANIELS, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Hertz Vehicles, LLC v. GEJO, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 17, 2018
    ...N.Y.S.2d 327 [1st Dept. 2005], lv dismissed 5 N.Y.3d 783, 801 N.Y.S.2d 803, 835 N.E.2d 663 [2005] ; see ADL Constr., LLC v. Chandler, 78 A.D.3d 407, 909 N.Y.S.2d 908 [1st Dept. 2010] ; see also Okun v. Tanners, 11 N.Y.3d 762, 867 N.Y.S.2d 25, 896 N.E.2d 660 [2008] ). MPS retained new counse......
  • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. 101 Ave. Physical Therapy
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 19, 2022
    ... ... dilatory in asserting their rights, they are not entitled to ... a favorable exercise of the Court's discretion (ADL ... Constr., LLC v Chandler, 78 A.D.3d 407, 407 ... [1st Dept 2010]; Hyundai Corp, v Republic of Iraq, ... 20 A.D.3d 56, 63 [1st Dept 2005] Iv dismissed 5 ... ...
  • Dimond v. Salvan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 4, 2010
  • People v. Montalvo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 4, 2010

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT