Foley Inc. v. Metropolis Superstructures, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2013-01622 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05910,11 N.Y.S.3d 873 (Mem),130 A.D.3d 680 |
| Parties | FOLEY INCORPORATED, respondent, v. METROPOLIS SUPERSTRUCTURES, INC., appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
130 A.D.3d 680
11 N.Y.S.3d 873 (Mem)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05910
FOLEY INCORPORATED, respondent
v.
METROPOLIS SUPERSTRUCTURES, INC., appellant.
2013-01622
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
July 8, 2015.
Gail M. Blasie, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Helfand & Helfand, New York, N.Y. (Michael A. D'Emidio of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated September 21, 2012, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 6, 2011, denying the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate an order of the same court dated January 21, 2010, striking the answer based on its failure to appear at a compliance conference, and after an inquest on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $82,097.71.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion to vacate the order dated January 21, 2010, is granted, the order dated September 6, 2011, is modified accordingly, and the answer is reinstated.
As a general rule, a defendant who seeks to vacate a default in appearing at a compliance conference is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; 22 NYCRR 202.27 [a]; Tragni v. Tragni, 21 A.D.3d 1084, 803 N.Y.S.2d 617 ; Bloom v. Primus Automotive Fin. Servs., 292 A.D.2d 410, 738 N.Y.S.2d 861 ; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 192, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendant demonstrated
a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear at the originally scheduled compliance conference on December 19, 2009, which occurred when a stay of the action was in effect (see Acosta v. Riverdale Dev., LLC, 72 A.D.3d 525, 898 N.Y.S.2d 451...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Notaro v. Performance Team
...qualify as a failure to perform a legal duty, the very definition of a default’ " ( Foley Inc. v. Metropolis Superstructures, Inc. , 130 A.D.3d 680, 681, 11 N.Y.S.3d 873, quoting Pelaez v. Westchester Med. Ctr. , 15 A.D.3d 375, 376, 789 N.Y.S.2d 533 ). In that situation, the defendant's def......
-
Hayes v. Vill. of Middleburgh
...(Bank of N.Y. v. Mohammed, 130 A.D.3d 1419, 1420, 14 N.Y.S.3d 783 [2015] [citations omitted]; see Foley Inc. v. Metropolis Superstructures, Inc., 130 A.D.3d 680, 680, 11 N.Y.S.3d 873 [2015] ). Cases evaluating the propriety of a dismissal under 22 NYCRR 202.27 routinely reference CPLR 5015(......
-
126 Henry St., Inc. v. Cater
...165 A.D.3d 863, 864, 86 N.Y.S.3d 90 ; Polsky v. Simon, 145 A.D.3d 693, 43 N.Y.S.3d 101 ; Foley Inc. v. Metropolis Superstructures, Inc., 130 A.D.3d 680, 11 N.Y.S.3d 873 ). The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Westchest......
-
555 Prospect Assocs., LLC v. Greenwich Design & Dev. Grp. Corp.
...5015[a][1] ; 22 NYCRR 202.27 [a]; Polsky v. Simon, 145 A.D.3d 693, 693, 43 N.Y.S.3d 101 ; Foley Inc. v. Metropolis Superstructures, Inc., 130 A.D.3d 680, 680, 11 N.Y.S.3d 873 ). "Whether an excuse is reasonable is a determination within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" ( Walker v.......