From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gomez v. One Sickles St. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 30, 2018
165 A.D.3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

7454N Index 300630/14

10-30-2018

Cynthia GOMEZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ONE SICKLES STREET COMPANY, LP, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (James M. Catterson of counsel), for appellants. Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Seth M. Weinberg of counsel), for respondent.


Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (James M. Catterson of counsel), for appellants.

Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Seth M. Weinberg of counsel), for respondent.

Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Tom, Mazzarelli, Kern, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2017, which denied defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment entered against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants' failure to update their address on file with the Secretary of State for 14 years after moving their offices does not constitute a reasonable excuse for their default ( CPLR 5015[a][1] ; see On Assignment v. Medasorb Tech., LLC, 50 A.D.3d 342, 855 N.Y.S.2d 98 [1st Dept. 2008] ; Lopez v. 592–600 Union Ave. Corp., 292 A.D.2d 262, 739 N.Y.S.2d 80 [1st Dept. 2002] ).

Defendants also failed to demonstrate that they had no knowledge of this personal injury action and that they had a meritorious defense, as required for relief under CPLR 317 (see Lopez, 292 A.D.2d at 263, 739 N.Y.S.2d 80 ; Baez v. Ende Realty Corp., 78 A.D.3d 576, 911 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1st Dept. 2010] ). As to lack of notice, defendants offered no explanation for their failure to receive the summons and complaint, and other documents, that plaintiff sent to the accident premises, i.e., the building they own (see Baez, 78 A.D.3d 576, 911 N.Y.S.2d 68 ). The affidavit by defendants' officer fails to show a meritorious defense, as it contains only a general assertion of lack of knowledge of the incident or of any alleged defect in the premises and a claim that the officer would have timely answered had he known about the action (see Lopez, 292 A.D.2d at 263, 739 N.Y.S.2d 80 ).


Summaries of

Gomez v. One Sickles St. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 30, 2018
165 A.D.3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Gomez v. One Sickles St. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Cynthia Gomez, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. One Sickles Street Company, LP, et…

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

Date published: Oct 30, 2018

Citations

165 A.D.3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7257
84 N.Y.S.3d 770