Carter v. Daimler Trust

• Decision Date: 21 November 2019
• Docket Number: 10413,Index 161730/15
• Citation: 110 N.Y.S.3d 841 (Mem),177 A.D.3d 541
• Parties: Keith E. CARTER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. DAIMLER TRUST, Defendant–Appellant, Bernice P. Deleo, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

177 A.D.3d 541

110 N.Y.S.3d 841 (Mem)

Keith E. CARTER, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v. DAIMLER TRUST, Defendant–Appellant,Bernice P. Deleo, Defendant.

10413

Index 161730/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 21, 2019

Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley LLP, Garden City (Donald S. Neumann, Jr. of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, New York (Daniel Niamehr of counsel), for respondent.

Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Webber, Kern, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered on or about November 30, 2018, which denied the motion of defendant Daimler Trust (Daimler) to vacate an order, same court (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered March 18, 2016, granting plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and, upon vacatur, to dismiss the complaint as against Daimler, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Daimler's motion to vacate the order entered on its default in opposing plaintiff's summary judgment motion was properly denied since Daimler did not move within one year of being served with the prior order and notice of its entry (see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; Vaca v. Village View Hous. Corp. , 170 A.D.3d 619, 620, 97 N.Y.S.3d 81 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Nor did Daimler present a valid excuse for its failure to do so within the prescribed time limitation (see Rosendale v. Aramian , 269 A.D.2d 209, 210, 703 N.Y.S.2d 108 [1st Dept. 2000] ).

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach Daimler's remaining contentions.