Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v. Raven Brands, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 March 2011 |
| Parties | GARAL WHOLESALERS, LTD., appellant, v. RAVEN BRANDS, INC., respondent, et al., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Barry A. Wadler, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Abelow & Cassandro, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Robert J. Cassandro of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated June 7, 2010, which granted the renewed motion of the defendant Raven Brands, Inc., in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer pursuant to CPLR 3012(d).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the renewed motion of the defendant Raven Brands, Inc., in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer is denied.
A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering and to serve a late answer must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( seeCPLR 5015[a][1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116;Heidari v. First Advance Funding Corp., 55 A.D.3d 669, 866 N.Y.S.2d 258;Levi v. Levi, 46 A.D.3d 519, 848 N.Y.S.2d 228;599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC. v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129;New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 27 A.D.3d 708, 815 N.Y.S.2d 611). The good-faith belief of the president of the defendant Raven Brands, Inc. (hereinafter Raven), that his telephone conversation with the plaintiff's attorney and his subsequent letters denying the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to answer the complaint did not constitute a sufficient excuse for the default, particularly since the plaintiff's attorney responded by letter stating that Raven was in default in answering the complaint ( see Tucker v. Rogers, 95 A.D.2d 960, 464 N.Y.S.2d 59). Furthermore, Raven's erroneous assumptions regarding the validity of the action and the need to defend did not constitute reasonable excuses for its default in answering and for its almost four-month delay in appearing in this action( see Yao Ping Tang v. Grand Estate, LLC, 77 A.D.3d 822, 823, 910 N.Y.S.2d 104;Awad v. Severino, 122 A.D.2d 242, 505 N.Y.S.2d 437;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jing Shan Chen v. R & K 51 Realty, Inc.
...months later (see Arias v. First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 100 A.D.3d 940, 941, 957 N.Y.S.2d 121 ; Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v. Raven Brands, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 919 N.Y.S.2d 358 ). Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default, we need not reach the ......
-
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Maurer
...do not constitute reasonable excuses for the failure to answer or otherwise appear ( see Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v. Raven Brands, Inc., 82 AD3d 1041, 919 N.Y.S.2d 358 [2d Dept 2011]; US Bank Natl. Assoc. v. Slavinski, 78 AD3d 1167, 912 N.Y.S.2d 285 [2d Dept 2010]; Yao Ping Tang v. Grand Est......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Gutierrez
...his default in appearing or answering, or for his lengthy delay in moving to vacate the default ( see Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v. Raven Brands, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 919 N.Y.S.2d 358;Bethune v. Prioleau, 82 A.D.3d 810, 810–811, 918 N.Y.S.2d 352;Yao Ping Tang v. Grand Estate, LLC, 77 A.......
-
Thomas v. Avalon Gardens Rehab. & Health Care Ctr.
...cause of action ( see Jedraszak v. County of Westchester, 102 A.D.3d 924, 925, 958 N.Y.S.2d 490;Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v. Raven Brands, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 919 N.Y.S.2d 358). Regarding the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126(3), the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the e......