Ibrahim v. Nablus Sweets Corp.

Decision Date16 May 2018
Docket Number2016–11882,Index No. 506887/14
Citation77 N.Y.S.3d 439,161 A.D.3d 961
Parties Abeer IBRAHIM, appellant, v. NABLUS SWEETS CORP., et al., defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Neil H. Greenberg & Associates, P.C., Massapequa, NY, for appellant.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid wages, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernadette Bayne, J.), dated October 6, 2016. The order denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time to move for the entry of a default judgment and, thereupon, pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants Nablus Sweets Corp. and Taiseer Hamoud, and, in effect, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Nablus Sweets Corp. and Taiseer Hamoud as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c).

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, in effect, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Nablus Sweets Corp. and Taiseer Hamoud is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

For approximately 10 months, from August 3, 2008, to May 26, 2009, the plaintiff was employed at a pastry shop in Brooklyn allegedly owned by the defendant Nablus Sweets, LLC, and operated by the defendants Nablus Sweets Corp. and Taiseer Hamoud. According to the plaintiff, she was an hourly employee, worked 84 hours in a six-day work week, and performed several functions at the pastry shop, including baker, cashier, sales associate, and dishwasher. In July 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, alleging, inter alia, that they failed to pay her the statutory minimum wage during the time period she was employed by them (see Labor Law § 652 ). On August 6, 2014, Nablus Sweets Corp. and Hamoud were personally served with the summons and complaint. On August 7, 2014, Nablus Sweets, LLC, was personally served with the summons and complaint and, on or about December 1, 2014, interposed an answer. However, Nablus Sweets Corp. and Hamoud (hereinafter together the defendants) failed to appear in the action, interpose an answer, or otherwise move with respect to the complaint. In September 2016, two years after the defendants defaulted, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time to move for the entry of a default judgment against the defendants and, thereupon, pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against them. The Supreme Court denied the motion and, in effect, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff appeals.

" CPLR 3215(c) provides that [i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned ... unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed’ " ( Myoung Ja Kim v. Wilson, 150 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 55 N.Y.S.3d 334, quoting CPLR 3215[c] ). This statute is strictly construed, as "[t]he language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory inasmuch as courts ‘shall’ dismiss claims ( CPLR 3215[c] ) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned" ( Giglio v. NTIMP, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 301, 307–308, 926 N.Y.S.2d 546 ; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Grella, 145 A.D.3d 669, 671, 44 N.Y.S.3d 56 ). Moreover, CPLR 3215(c) expressly provides that a court may dismiss a complaint as abandoned "upon its own initiative or on motion." The statute further provides, however, that the failure to timely seek a default may be excused if " ‘sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed’ " ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Grella, 145 A.D.3d at 671, 44 N.Y.S.3d 56, quoting CPLR 3215[c] ). To establish the sufficient cause required by CPLR 3215(c), "the party opposing dismissal must demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action" ( Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Hiyo, 130 A.D.3d 763, 764, 13 N.Y.S.3d 554 ; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bonanno, 146 A.D.3d 844, 845–846, 45 N.Y.S.3d 173 ). " ‘The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable in any given instance is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court " ( Pipinias v. J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., 116 A.D.3d 749, 752, 983 N.Y.S.2d 587, quoting Giglio v. NTIMP, Inc., 86 A.D.3d at 308, 926 N.Y.S.2d 546 ; see U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Dorvelus, 140 A.D.3d 850, 852, 32 N.Y.S.3d 631 ). While a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse, such excuse must be supported by detailed allegations of fact explaining the law office failure (see CPLR 2005 ; CEO Bus. Brokers, Inc. v. Alqabili, 105 A.D.3d 989, 990, 963 N.Y.S.2d 711 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Wider, 101 A.D.3d 683, 955 N.Y.S.2d 202 ).

Here, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time to move for the entry of a default judgment and, thereupon, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. CPLR 2004 allows a court to "extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown." "In exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Citibank, N.A. v. Kerszko
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 5, 2022
    ...v. Saleh, 190 A.D.3d 811, 136 N.Y.S.3d 748 ; Bank of Am., N.A. v. Lucido, 163 A.D.3d at 614, 81 N.Y.S.3d 161 ; Ibrahim v. Nablus Sweets Corp., 161 A.D.3d 961, 77 N.Y.S.3d 439 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mayen, 155 A.D.3d at 811, 64 N.Y.S.3d 291 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Espinal, 136 A.D.3d at......
  • Citibank v. Kerszko
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 5, 2022
    ... ... 333, 335; Kwang Bok Yi v Open Karaoke Corp ., 161 ... A.D.3d 971). CPLR 5701(a)(2)(v) specifically confers upon ... v Lucido , 163 A.D.3d ... at 614; Ibrahim v Nablus Sweets Corp. , 161 A.D.3d ... 961; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A ... ...
  • Citibank v. Kerszko
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 5, 2022
    ... ... 333, 335; Kwang Bok Yi v Open Karaoke Corp ., 161 ... A.D.3d 971). CPLR 5701(a)(2)(v) specifically confers upon ... v Lucido , 163 A.D.3d ... at 614; Ibrahim v Nablus Sweets Corp. , 161 A.D.3d ... 961; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A ... ...
  • Private Capital Grp., LLC v. Hosseinipour
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 13, 2019
    ...plaintiff's attorney regarding law office failure were conclusory and unsubstantiated (see CPLR 2005 ; Ibrahim v. Nablus Sweets Corp. , 161 A.D.3d 961, 963, 77 N.Y.S.3d 439 ; Pipinias v. J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc. , 116 A.D.3d at 752, 983 N.Y.S.2d 587 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini , 84 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT