Martinez v. D'Alessandro Custom Builders & Demolition, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-08101. |
| Citation | 861 N.Y.S.2d 737,2008 NY Slip Op 05893,52 A.D.3d 786 |
| Parties | HUGO MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. D'ALESSANDRO CUSTOM BUILDERS & DEMOLITION, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion of the defendant D'Alessandro Custom Builders & Demolition, Inc., inter alia, to vacate the prior order entered March 12, 2007 and to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer is denied.
A defendant seeking to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823 [2005]; Weinberger v Judlau Contr., 2 AD3d 631 [2003]; Kaplinsky v Mazor, 307 AD2d 916 [2003]). While the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]), a general excuse that the default was caused by delays occasioned by the defendant's insurance carrier is insufficient (see Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672 [2006]; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353 [2005]; Campbell v Ghafoor, 8 AD3d 316, 317 [2004]; Weinberger v Judlau Contr., 2 AD3d 631 [2003]; Franklin v Williams, 2 AD3d 400 [2003]). In addition, the unverified "affidavit" of the respondent's president and the general denials contained in the verified answer were insufficient to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing of a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Thakurdyal v 341 Scholes St., LLC, 50 AD3d 889 [2008]; Figueroa v Luna, 281 AD2d 204, 205 [2001]; Stein v Yonkers Contr., 244 AD2d 473, 474 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walley v. Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC
...( see Leifer v. Pilgreen Corp., 62 A.D.3d 759, 760, 878 N.Y.S.2d 451 [2009]; Martinez v. D'Alessandro Custom Bldrs. & Demolition, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 786, 787, 861 N.Y.S.2d 737 [2008]; Lemberger v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 A.D.3d 671, 672, 822 N.Y.S.2d 597 [2006] ). Thus, the c......
-
Gause v. Martinez
...such violation was the sole proximate cause of the accident ( see Todd v. Godek, 71 A.D.3d 872, 895 N.Y.S.2d 861; Lopez v. Reyes–Flores, 52 A.D.3d at 786, 861 N.Y.S.2d 389). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied Gause's motion for summary judgment dismissing [936 N.Y.S.2d 275] t......
-
Ogman v. Mastrantonio Catering, Inc.
...Corp. v. Opus Apparel, 53 N.Y.2d 799, 801, 439 N.Y.S.2d 910, 422 N.E.2d 570 n; Martinez v D'Alessandro Custom Bldrs. & Demolition, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 786, 787, 861 N.Y.S.2d 737; Pampalone v. Giant Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., 17 A.D.3d 556, 557, 793 N.Y.S.2d 462; United Talmudical Academy of Kirya......
-
Maida v. Lessing's Rest. Serv., Inc.
...N.Y.S.2d 906; Leifer v. Pilgreen Corp., 62 A.D.3d 759, 760, 878 N.Y.S.2d 451; Martinez v. D'Alessandro Custom Bldrs. & Demolition, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 786, 787, 861 N.Y.S.2d 737; Segovia v. Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 A.D.3d 1143, 1144, 842 N.Y.S.2d 536). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider......