From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DiBlasio v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2001
282 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted March 7, 2001.

April 5, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated July 12, 2000, which granted the defendants' motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated November 11, 1996, entered upon their default in answering the complaint.

Pomerance Collins, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ronald V. Pomerance of counsel), for appellants.

Sharon Weintraub Dashow and George Sheinberg, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the judgment is reinstated.

To vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317, a defendant must show that he or she did not receive actual notice of the summons in time to defend the action, and a meritorious defense (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138; Udell v. Alcamo Supply Contr. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 453). The defendants did not satisfy these requirements. The testimony presented at the hearing established that the summons and complaint in this action were duly mailed to the defendants' law office, raising a presumption of delivery which was not adequately rebutted by the defendants (see, Engel v. Lichterman, 62 N.Y.2d 943; Udell v. Alcamo Supply Contr. Corp., supra; Facey v. Heyward, 244 A.D.2d 452). Furthermore, the defendants failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to this legal malpractice action, which is predicated upon their failure to file a summons and complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs who retained them to commence an action (cf., Alexander v. County of Westchester, 248 A.D.2d 419). Accordingly, the defendants' motion to vacate their default should have been denied.


Summaries of

DiBlasio v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2001
282 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

DiBlasio v. Kaufman

Case Details

Full title:PHYLLIS DiBLASIO, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JEFFREY B. KAUFMAN, ETC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Apr 5, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 880

Citing Cases

Uzo v. Uzo

The plaintiff made an adequate showing that service pursuant to CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4) was impracticable (…

In re Mtr. of Fotiades

As to that branch of the motion which was made pursuant to CPLR 317, the appellant failed to demonstrate that…