Imovegreen, LLC v. Frantic, LLC, 1195N, 300372/13.

• Decision Date: 19 May 2016
• Docket Number: 1195N, 300372/13.
• Citation: 32 N.Y.S.3d 103,139 A.D.3d 539,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03969
• Parties: IMOVEGREEN, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. FRANTIC, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

139 A.D.3d 539
32 N.Y.S.3d 103
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03969

IMOVEGREEN, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
FRANTIC, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

1195N, 300372/13.

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

May 19, 2016.

32 N.Y.S.3d 104

Law Offices of Steven Mauner, P.C., West Islip (Steven Mauner of counsel), for appellants.

Law Offices of Jacob Zelmanovitz, Brooklyn (Jacob Zelmanovitz of counsel), for respondents.

SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.

139 A.D.3d 539

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered June 1, 2015, which, upon defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment entered against them and to lift related restraints on their bank accounts, among other things, stayed any efforts to execute upon the default judgment, and directed defendants to post a bond in the amount of $25,000, and, upon proof of the filing of such bond, to settle an order on notice vacating the default judgment and lifting the related restraints, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, defendants' motion denied, and the court-ordered stay vacated.

Although “certain law office failures may constitute reasonable

139 A.D.3d 540

excuses” (Mutual Mar. Off., Inc. v. Joy Constr. Corp., 39 A.D.3d 417, 419, 835 N.Y.S.2d 88 [1st Dept.2007] ), a claim of law office failure should be rejected if the conduct is part of a pattern of “persistent and willful inaction” (Youni Gems Corp. v. Bassco Creations Inc., 70 A.D.3d 454, 455, 896 N.Y.S.2d 315, [1st Dept.2010] ), “dilatory behavior” (Perez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 47 A.D.3d 505, 506, 850 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept. 2008] ) or “willful default and neglect” (Santiago v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 A.D.3d 393, 394, 780 N.Y.S.2d 764 [2d Dept.2004] ). This is such a case. Defendants' alleged law office failure is not excusable, as the record shows that defense counsel was fully aware of...