From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karamuco v. Cohen

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 27, 2011
90 A.D.3d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-12-27

Astrit KARAMUCO, et al., appellants, v. Oz COHEN, et al., defendants,Janel Celaj, respondent.

McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Christine Kennedy Flores of counsel), for appellants. Rabinowitz & Galina, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael M. Rabinowitz of counsel), for respondent.


McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Christine Kennedy Flores of counsel), for appellants. Rabinowitz & Galina, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael M. Rabinowitz of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), entered December 23, 2010, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated August 10, 2010, granting, without opposition, the motion of the defendant Janel Celaj for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate their default in opposing the motion of the defendant Janel Celaj for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion ( see Donovan v. Chiapetta, 72 A.D.3d 635, 897 N.Y.S.2d 908; Aurora Loan Servs. v. Grant, 70 A.D.3d 986, 893 N.Y.S.2d 898). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion ( see Zarzuela v. Castanos, 71 A.D.3d 880, 895 N.Y.S.2d 857; *856 Santiago v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 A.D.3d 393, 394, 780 N.Y.S.2d 764). Here, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiffs' claim of law office failure was sufficient to excuse their failure to oppose Celaj's motion for summary judgment. However, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with any affidavits or documentary evidence of their own to demonstrate that they had a potentially meritorious opposition to Celaj's motion. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate their default.

DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Karamuco v. Cohen

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 27, 2011
90 A.D.3d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Karamuco v. Cohen

Case Details

Full title:Astrit KARAMUCO, et al., appellants, v. Oz COHEN, et al., defendants,Janel…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 27, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9598
934 N.Y.S.2d 855

Citing Cases

PCA Acquisitions V, LLC v. Vasser

A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon her failure to oppose a motion must demonstrate both a…

Glauber v. Ekstein

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her…