Opinion
2015-05-20
In the Matter of Miklos WEINSTOCK, et al., respondents, v. Thomas LIEBERMAN, also known as Yoel Tzvi Lieberman, et al., appellants.
Morrison Cohen, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Y. David Scharf, David A. Piedra, and Brett Dockwell of counsel), and Sheldon Eisenberger, New York, N.Y., for appellants (one brief filed). Mendel Zilberberg & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Samuel Karpel of counsel), for respondents.
Morrison Cohen, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Y. David Scharf, David A. Piedra, and Brett Dockwell of counsel), and Sheldon Eisenberger, New York, N.Y., for appellants (one brief filed). Mendel Zilberberg & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Samuel Karpel of counsel), for respondents.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated January 17, 2012, Thomas Lieberman, also known as Yoel Tzvi Lieberman, and Alain Lieberman, also known as Avrohom Pinchos Lieberman, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated October 24, 2013, as denied their motion to vacate an order and judgment of the same court dated June 19, 2013, and a judgment of the same court entered August 8, 2013, which were entered upon their default in answering or appearing.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To obtain relief from their default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the appellants were required to show both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious defense to the petition ( see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am., 111 A.D.3d 731, 974 N.Y.S.2d 560; Matter of Royal Leisure v. TLAM, Inc., 107 A.D.3d 721, 967 N.Y.S.2d 104; see also Needleman v. Tornheim, 106 A.D.3d 707, 708, 964 N.Y.S.2d 231; Walker v. Mohammed, 90 A.D.3d 1034, 934 N.Y.S.2d 854). Here, while the appellants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default, they failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the petition.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion to vacate the order and judgment dated June 19, 2013, and the judgment entered August 8, 2013.