Bobet v. Rockefeller Ctr., North, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 November 2010 |
| Citation | 911 N.Y.S.2d 43,78 A.D.3d 475 |
| Parties | Julio BOBET, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROCKEFELLER CENTER, NORTH, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants, Restaurants Associates, Inc., et al., Defendants. [And Other Actions]. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris, P.C., New York (Charles W. Kreines of counsel), for appellants.
Law Offices of Joel L. Getreu, P.C., New York (Joel L. Getreu of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 23, 2009, which to the extent appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order granting defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint on default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
To obtain relief from a default judgment, a party is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for thedefault and a meritorious claim or defense to the action ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Facsimile Communications Indus., Inc. v. NYU Hosp. Ctr., 28 A.D.3d 391, 812 N.Y.S.2d 869 [2006] ).
The court properly found plaintiff's default excusable, particularly in view of the strong public policy of deciding cases on the merits ( see National Union Fire Insur. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Diamond, 39 A.D.3d 360, 361, 833 N.Y.S.2d 99 [2007] ). There was no indication of a pattern of dilatory behavior or evidence that the default was willful, and there was no claim of prejudice.
Moreover, based on testimony of a recurring pattern of placing wet garbage in the area where plaintiff fell, the court properly determined that plaintiff had a meritorious claim ( see Cignarella v. Anjoe-A.J. Mkt., Inc., 68 A.D.3d 560, 561, 890 N.Y.S.2d 542 [2009] ).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Richards
...Dept.2016] ). This State also has a strong public policy for deciding cases on the merits (see e.g. Bobet v. Rockefeller Ctr., N., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 475, 475, 911 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept 2010] ). While Supreme Court stated that it reviewed all evidence submitted in denying the borrower's motion......
-
Soffer v. Montanez
...they constituted a pattern of willful default and neglect, and there was no claim of prejudice (see Bobet v. Rockefeller Ctr., N., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 475, 475, 911 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept. 2010] ; Hageman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 25 A.D.3d 760, 761, 808 N.Y.S.2d 763 [2d Dept. 2006] ). However......
-
Cheri Rest. Inc. v. Eoche
...both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious claim or defense to the action” (Bobet v. Rockefeller Ctr., N., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 475, 475, 911 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept.2010] ; see also CPLR 5015[a][1] ). Here, defendant has adequately demonstrated a reasonable excuse, namely, “inadve......
-
Higgs v. Williams
...costs.Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default ( CPLR 5015[a][1] ; see Bobet v. Rockefeller Ctr., N., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 475, 911 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept. 2010] ). His explanation that he changed his cell phone number several times and that his attorney's paralegal did......