Kurtz v. Mitchell

Decision Date28 March 2006
Docket Number2005-01183.
Citation2006 NY Slip Op 02338,27 A.D.3d 697,810 N.Y.S.2d 913
PartiesRICHARD KURTZ, Respondent, v. MICHAEL MITCHELL, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to vacate the default judgment. To vacate his default, the appellant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Caputo v Peton, 13 AD3d 474, 475 [2004]; Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393 [2004]; Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H., 2 AD3d 841 [2003]). The appellant failed to present a reasonable excuse for the default (see Matter of Hye-Young Chon v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 849 [2005]; Abrams v City of New York, 13 AD3d 566 [2004]; Grezinsky v Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 AD2d 542 [2003]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 568-569 [1997]).

In light of the appellant's failure to present grounds for vacatur of the default judgment, the plaintiff's failure to submit an affidavit of service of additional notice in compliance with CPLR 3215 (g) (3) (i) did not constitute a fatal defect (see Harkless v Reid, 23 AD3d 622 [2005]; Rothschild v Finkelstein, 248 AD2d 701, 701-702 [1998]).

Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Thas v. Dayrich Trading, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 30, 2010
    ...Corp., 77 A.D.3d 640, 908 N.Y.S.2d 364; Mauro v. 1896 Stillwell Ave., Inc., 39 A.D.3d 506, 507, 833 N.Y.S.2d 206; Kurtz v. Mitchell, 27 A.D.3d 697, 698, 810 N.Y.S.2d 913; Harkless v. Reid, 23 A.D.3d 622, 623, 806 N.Y.S.2d 214). "While CPLR 1024 allows a party who is ignorantof the name or i......
  • Peck v. Dybo Realty Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 5, 2010
    ...did not constitute a fatal defect ( see Mauro v. 1896 Stillwell Ave., Inc., 39 A.D.3d 506, 507, 833 N.Y.S.2d 206; Kurtz v. Mitchell, 27 A.D.3d 697, 698, 810 N.Y.S.2d 913;Harkless v. Reid, 23 A.D.3d 622, 623, 806 N.Y.S.2d 214). DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and SGROI, JJ., ...
  • Kotchina v. Luna Park Housing Corporation, 2005-05179.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 28, 2006

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