From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fatima v. Twenty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 2008
53 A.D.3d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-09584.

July 15, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), dated August 21, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered October 12, 2006, in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $1,025,000, upon its default in answering the complaint.

Rimland Associates, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anthony M. Grisanti of counsel), for appellants.

Shayne, Dachs, Corker, Sauer Dachs, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Fisher, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the defendant's failure to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State did not constitute a reasonable excuse to vacate its default under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (see Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 623; Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S. Purch. Serv., 126 AD2d 621, 622), it was still entitled to vacatur of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 317. That statute permits a defendant who has been "served with a summons other than by personal delivery" to seek relief from a default upon a showing that it did not receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense (CPLR 317; see Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454; Brockington v Brookfield Dev. Corp., 308 AD2d 498; Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d 404, 405). The affidavit of the defendant's president set forth sufficient facts to warrant relief from its default under CPLR 317.


Summaries of

Fatima v. Twenty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 2008
53 A.D.3d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Fatima v. Twenty

Case Details

Full title:HAMIDA FATIMA et al., Appellants, v. TWENTY SEVEN-TWENTY FOUR REALTY…

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

Date published: Jul 15, 2008

Citations

53 A.D.3d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 6284
861 N.Y.S.2d 768

Citing Cases

Vengrenyuk v. Exxonmobil Oil Corp.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the third-party defendant/second third-party defendant,…

Reyes v. Dch Management, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. While the defendant's failure to keep a current address on…