From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Akhtar v. Cavalieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 2, 1998
255 A.D.2d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 2, 1998

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


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the issue of whether the defendant was properly served; and it is further,

Ordered that in the event it is determined, after a hearing, that the defendant was properly served, the defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys $5,000 as a condition of vacating his default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1).

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendant's objections to the propriety of service warranted a hearing (see, e.g., Wern v. D'Alessandro, 219 A.D.2d 646; see, Poet v. Kolenda, 142 A.D.2d 633). If it is determined that the defendant was not properly served, then the default judgment must be vacated unconditionally pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) (see, Anello v. Barry, 149 A.D.2d 640).

However, if, after a hearing, it is determined that the defendant was properly served, we agree that, under the circumstances of this case, the vacatur of the defendant's default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and the imposition of costs would not be an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Furon Constr. v. Velez, 209 A.D.2d 666; American Sigol Corp. v. Zicherman, 166 A.D.2d 628). However, an award of "costs" in the amount of $9,230, which includes counsel fees for services not necessarily related to the defendant's default, would be excessive under the circumstances, and should be limited to $5,000 (see, Workman v. Amato, 231 A.D.2d 627).

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


Summaries of

Akhtar v. Cavalieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 2, 1998
255 A.D.2d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Akhtar v. Cavalieri

Case Details

Full title:RUGIA AKHTAR, Appellant-Respondent, v. VINCENZO CAVALIERI…

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

Date published: Nov 2, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 318

Citing Cases

Mbna Am. Bank v. Novins

In view of the conflicting affidavits submitted with respect to this issue, the Supreme Court should have…

Emigrant Bank v. Ramasir

Here, the defendant rebutted the presumption of proper service created by the plaintiff's affidavit of…