Utak v. Commerce Bank Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2011
• Parties: Ntia UTAK, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.COMMERCE BANK INC., Defendant–Appellant,Eric Franklin, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 522

930 N.Y.S.2d 575

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07261

Ntia UTAK, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.COMMERCE BANK INC., Defendant–Appellant,Eric Franklin, et al., Defendants.

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

Oct. 18, 2011.

White and Williams LLP, New York (Rafael Vergara of counsel), for appellant.Trevor A. Reid, P.C., Bronx (Trevor A. Reid of counsel), for respondent.MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered February 10, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Commerce Bank Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Commerce dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff, Ntia Utak, commenced this action on January 25, 2008, alleging false arrest and false imprisonment against defendant Commerce. The complaint refers to an “occurrence” involving Utak that took place on February 22, 2007 at a Commerce Bank in Manhattan. The only factual allegations describing the occurrence are that Commerce directed its agents, servants and employees, to arrest plaintiff. The complaint does not explain why plaintiff was in the bank, or include the circumstances that led to plaintiff's alleged arrest and false imprisonment. Nor does the record include an affidavit by plaintiff attesting to the information contained in the complaint. Commerce did not file an answer in this action.

On July 26, 2010, approximately 30 months after commencing this action, plaintiff submitted a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) seeking a preliminary conference. The record does not indicate, nor does plaintiff contend, that he took any steps to prosecute his case prior to submitting the RJI. On August 20, 2010, Commerce moved to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) for failure to enter a default judgment within one year. Commerce noted that more than two years had passed since it had allegedly been served with the summons and complaint, and that plaintiff had not sought entry of a default judgment against it during that time ¹.

Under CPLR 3215(c), if a plaintiff fails to seek entry of a judgment within one year after default the court “shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned ... unless sufficient cause is shown why [it] should not be dismissed.” Here, plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause to defeat the dismissal motion because he neither set forth a viable excuse for the delay, nor demonstrated a meritorious cause of action ( Hoppenfeld v. Hoppenfeld, 220 A.D.2d 302, 303, 632 N.Y.S.2d 558 [1995]; Gavalas v. Podelson, 297 A.D.2d...