From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Szilaski v. Aphrodite Construction Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 17, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).


Ordered that the order dated March 11, 1997, is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the motion is denied, and so much of the order dated April 15, 1996, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to enter judgment against the defendant Highfields Holding Company, Inc., upon its default in answering the complaint is reinstated.

We reject the appellants' contention that the defendants Aphrodite Construction Company, Inc., Aphrodite Acquisitions, Inc., and Highfields Holding Company, Inc. (hereinafter the movants) should not have been allowed to relitigate the issue of the default on a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) ( see, Britvan v. Sutton Edwards, 226 A.D.2d 491; Picnic v. Seatrain Lines, 117 A.D.2d 504). However, an application to vacate a default may be granted only if the movant establishes that its default was excusable and that it has a meritorious defense to the action ( see, Grutman v. Southgate at Bar Harbor Home Owners' Assn., 207 A.D.2d 526). Here, since the movants failed to establish that the defendant Highfields Holdings Company, Inc., had a meritorious defense to the action ( see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500), the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in vacating the default.

Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Szilaski v. Aphrodite Construction Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Szilaski v. Aphrodite Construction Company

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH SZILASKI et al., Appellants, v. APHRODITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 17, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 297

Citing Cases

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS v. REEK

Relief under CPLR 5015 (a) is available where the defendant can demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the…

Trustees of Northport-East v. Pf. Mut. Ins. Co.

The appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default. Therefore, the Supreme Court…