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.

Neck Road One Realty, LLC v. Artdent

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


March 5, 2012

NECK ROAD ONE REALTY, LLC,
RESPONDENT, --
v.
ARTDENT, INC., APPELLANT, -AND- "JOHN DOE," UNDERTENANT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), dated March 29, 2010.

Neck Rd. One Realty, LLC v Artdent, Inc.

Decided on March 5, 2012

Appellate Term, Second Department

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

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

The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of tenant's motion seeking to vacate a default final judgment and warrant, and to restore tenant to possession.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this commercial nonpayment summary proceeding, a default final judgment awarding landlord possession and the sum of $67,546.17 was entered on August 25, 2009. The warrant of eviction issued on September 4, 2009 and was executed on February 8, 2010. Thereafter, the Civil Court denied the branches of a motion by tenant seeking to vacate the final judgment and warrant of eviction, and to restore tenant to possession.

Upon a review of the record, we find no sufficient basis to vacate the default final judgment and warrant, as tenant failed to show that it has a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Moreover, while the Civil Court is authorized, in appropriate circumstances, to restore a tenant to possession after an eviction (see CCA 212; CPLR 5015 [d]; Matter of Brusco v Braun, 84 NY2d 674, 682 [1994]; 467 42nd St. v Decker, 186 Misc 2d 439, 440 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2000]), we find that such circumstances do not exist here.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Date: March 05, 2012

20120305

© 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.