Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC v. Demko

• Docket Number: 2020-06580,Index No. 621583/19
• Decision Date: 21 June 2023
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 03328
• Parties: Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, etc., respondent, v. Steven Demko, etc., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 03328

Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, etc., respondent,
v.
Steven Demko, etc., appellant.

No. 2020-06580, Index No. 621583/19

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

June 21, 2023

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Harrison, NY (Allyson A. Avila and Patrick J. Welch of counsel), for appellant.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York, NY (David G. Keyko and Chris Fennell of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LARA J. GENOVESI, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Elizabeth H. Emerson, J.), entered July 13, 2020. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated June 16, 2020, granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $314,025.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(f), "[a]n applicant for a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting defendant's failure to answer or appear" (Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Vorobyov, 188 A.D.3d 803, 806 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Haar Orthopaedics & Sports Med., P.C., 170 A.D.3d 1125, 1126; Fried v Jacob Holding, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 56, 59). To demonstrate the facts constituting the claim, the movant need only submit sufficient proof to enable a court to determine that a viable cause of action exists (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 71; Fried v Jacob Holding, Inc., 110 A.D.3d at 60; Neuman v Zurich N. Am., 36 A.D.3d 601, 602).

"In order to successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, a defendant who has failed to timely appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action" (Maldonado v Mosquera, 186 A.D.3d 1352, 1353). "Whether a proffered excuse is reasonable is a sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits. The...