Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maribel Ramos v. Donskoi Realty

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS Appellate Term, Second Department


February 9, 2012

MARIBEL RAMOS,
RESPONDENT,
v.
DONSKOI REALTY, LLC,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered September 22, 2010.

Ramos v Donskoi Realty, LLC

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 9, 2012

PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ

The order, following a hearing, denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a security deposit. Defendant failed to appear for trial and a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant moved to vacate the default judgment, and, in a supporting affidavit, its corporate officer proffered an excuse for the default and alleged, as a meritorious defense, that he was not a party to this action. Following a hearing, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion.

To warrant a vacatur of the default judgment, defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default as well as a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 140 [1986]). We find that the vague statement by defendant's corporate officer, that he is not a party to the action, is insufficient to establish a meritorious defense (see Todd Rotwein, D.P.M., P.C. v Goodson, 23 Misc 3d 135[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50813[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, as substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807), the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: February 09, 2012

20120209

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.