Valiotis v. Psaroudis

• Decision Date: 03 November 2010
• Parties: Evanthia VALIOTIS, respondent, v. Antonios PSAROUDIS, et al., defendants, Constantino Psaroudis, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

911 N.Y.S.2d 111
78 A.D.3d 683

Evanthia VALIOTIS, respondent,
v.
Antonios PSAROUDIS, et al., defendants,
Constantino Psaroudis, appellant.

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

Nov. 3, 2010.

911 N.Y.S.2d 111

George Bassias, Astoria, N.Y., for appellant.

Ira S. Newman, Great Neck, N.Y. (Robert W. Lewis of counsel), for respondent.

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

78 A.D.3d 683

In an action, inter alia, to rescind a contract for the sale of a pushcart business, and to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, the defendant Constantino Psaroudis appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated June 28, 2010, which granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave

78 A.D.3d 684

to enter judgment against him upon his default in appearing or answering the complaint, and denied his cross motion for leave to serve a late answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The affidavit of the plaintiff's process server submitted in support of the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against

911 N.Y.S.2d 112

the defendant Constantino Psaroudis (hereinafter the defendant) constituted prima facie evidence of valid service upon the defendant pursuant to CPLR 308(1) ( see Prospect Park Mgt., LLC v. Beatty, 73 A.D.3d 885, 886, 900 N.Y.S.2d 433; Wieck v. Halpern, 255 A.D.2d 438, 680 N.Y.S.2d 599). In addition, the plaintiff submitted proof of the facts constituting the claim and the defendant's default ( see CPLR 3215[f]; Trini Realty Corp. v. Fulton Ctr. LLC, 53 A.D.3d 479, 861 N.Y.S.2d 743; 599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129; Lipp v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 A.D.3d 649, 650, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671).

In opposing the plaintiff's motion, the defendant was required to establish both a reasonable excuse for his default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( see CPLR 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; Gray v. B.R. Trucking Co., 59 N.Y.2d 649, 650, 463 N.Y.S.2d 192, 449 N.E.2d 1270; Gross v. Kail, 70 A.D.3d 997, 998, 893 N.Y.S.2d 891; Miller v. Ateres Shlomo, LLC, 49 A.D.3d 612, 613, 853 N.Y.S.2d 602; Lipp v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 A.D.3d at 649, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671). The defendant's bare and unsubstantiated denial of...