From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hertz Vehicles LLC v. Westchester Radiology & Imaging, PC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 17, 2018
161 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

6620N Index 161271/14

05-17-2018

HERTZ VEHICLES LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. WESTCHESTER RADIOLOGY & IMAGING, PC, et al., Defendants, A.C. Medical, P.C., et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for appellants. Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, New York (David F. Boucher, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.


Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for appellants.

Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, New York (David F. Boucher, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Acosta, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Kern, Singh, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 20, 2017, which denied defendants A.C. Medical, P.C. and Vital Chiropractic, P.C.'s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against them and to compel acceptance of their answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the motion court found that defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default but failed to demonstrate 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 [1986] ), we find that defendants' proffered excuse was not reasonable (see Gecaj v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Corp., 149 A.D.3d 600, 602, 51 N.Y.S.3d 74 [1st Dept. 2017] ), and therefore need not determine whether they showed a potentially meritorious defense (see M.R. v. 2526 Valentine LLC, 58 A.D.3d 530, 532, 871 N.Y.S.2d 131 [1st Dept. 2009] ).

Defendants' counsel's perfunctory and unsubstantiated explanation that, due to a computer inputting error by an unspecified person, the law firm believed that an answer had been filed, may explain defendants' failure to answer timely (see Interboro Ins. Co. v. Perez, 112 A.D.3d 483, 976 N.Y.S.2d 378 [1st Dept. 2013] ). However, it fails to explain either their continued failure to answer or to take any other steps to appear after they received notices of default or their failure to move to vacate the default judgment until eight months after they received notices of entry of the judgment (see CEO Bus. Brokers, Inc. v. Alqabili, 105 A.D.3d 989, 963 N.Y.S.2d 711 [2d Dept. 2013] ; Pichardo–Garcia v. Josephine's Spa Corp., 91 A.D.3d 413, 936 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2012] ).


Summaries of

Hertz Vehicles LLC v. Westchester Radiology & Imaging, PC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 17, 2018
161 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Hertz Vehicles LLC v. Westchester Radiology & Imaging, PC

Case Details

Full title:HERTZ VEHICLES LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. WESTCHESTER RADIOLOGY …

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

Date published: May 17, 2018

Citations

161 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
161 A.D.3d 550
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 3609

Citing Cases

Neely v. Felicetti

However, defendants failed to explain their continued failure to answer the complaint, or why they did not…

Gem Invs. Am., LLC v. Marquez

Furthermore, his alleged unsuccessful attempts to reach an agreement with opposing counsel did not constitute…