Karalis v. New Dimensions HR, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 April 2013
• Citation: 105 A.D.3d 707,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02222,962 N.Y.S.2d 647
• Parties: Elma KARALIS, et al., appellants, v. NEW DIMENSIONS HR, INC., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

105 A.D.3d 707

962 N.Y.S.2d 647

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02222

Elma KARALIS, et al., appellants,

v.NEW DIMENSIONS HR, INC., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

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

April 3, 2013.

Scott Lockwood, North Babylon, N.Y., for appellants.

Podvey, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner, Cocoziello & Chattman, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Aljian of counsel), for respondents.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated February 3, 2011, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants New Dimensions HR, Inc., and Ingraham Contracting, upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and granted the cross motion of the defendants New Dimensions HR, Inc., and Ingraham Contractingto vacate their default in appearing or answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants New Dimensions HR, Inc., and Ingraham Contracting, upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, is granted, and the cross motion of the defendants New Dimensions HR, Inc., and Ingraham Contracting to vacate their default in appearing or answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer is denied.

The plaintiffs demonstrated their entitlement to judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants New Dimensions HR, Inc., and Ingraham Contracting (hereinafter together the New Dimensions defendants) by submitting proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting their claim, and proof of those defendants' failure to answer or appear ( seeCPLR 3215[f]; Wassertheil v. Elburg, LLC, 94 A.D.3d 753, 753, 941 N.Y.S.2d 679;C & H Import & Export, Inc. v. MNA Global, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 784, 785, 912 N.Y.S.2d 428).

To successfully oppose the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment against them, the New Dimensions defendants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( 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;Wassertheil v. Elburg, LLC, 94 A.D.3d at 753, 941 N.Y.S.2d 679;Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Izmirligil, 88 A.D.3d 930, 931, 931 N.Y.S.2d 667;Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini, 84 A.D.3d 789, 789, 921 N.Y.S.2d 643). While the New Dimensions defendants' attorney may have engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs' attorney for a few months after the New Dimensions defendants' time to...