From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

29-31 N. Sta. Plaza v. Shmulick Constr. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 2004
8 A.D.3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05432.

Decided June 14, 2004.

In an action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, the defendants, Shmulick Construction Corporation, Shmulick Contracting Corporation, and Shmulick Yizhary, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated May 22, 2003, which denied the motion of the defendants Shmulick Contracting Corporation and Shmulick Yizhary to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered February 14, 1996, entered upon their default in opposing the plaintiff's motion to strike their answer, as is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $101,374.67.

Kolber Linn, LLC, Flushing, N.Y. (David A. Linn of counsel), for appellants.

Goldweber Hershkowitz, Mineola, N.Y. (Max Goldweber and Marcia B. Hershkowitz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P. GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal by the defendant Shmulick Construction Corporation is dismissed, as it is not aggrieved by the order appealed from ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants Shmulick Contracting Corporation and Shmulick Yizhary (hereinafter the appellants) did not proffer a valid excuse for their failure to respond to the plaintiff's discovery demands, to comply with court orders, and to oppose the plaintiff's motion to strike their answer ( see MRI Enters. v. Amanat, 263 A.D.2d 530; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568; Lauro v. Cronin, 184 A.D.2d 837). Moreover, they did not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense ( see MRI Enters. v. Amanat, supra). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to vacate the default.

The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

29-31 N. Sta. Plaza v. Shmulick Constr. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 2004
8 A.D.3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

29-31 N. Sta. Plaza v. Shmulick Constr. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:29-31 NORTH STATION PLAZA, respondent, v. SHMULICK CONSTRUCTION…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 694

Citing Cases

Dobbins v. Vartabedian

To vacate her default in appearing at a pretrial conference, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a…

Amato v. Fast Repair, Inc.

To vacate their default, the defendants were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their…