Opinion
03-30-2016
LAW OFFICE OF CIVARDI & OBIOL, P.C., respondent, v. WEISBERG & WEISBERG, appellant.
Weisberg & Weisberg, Great Neck, N.Y. (Sidney A. Weisberg of counsel), appellant pro se. Law Office of Marc M. Isaac, PLLC, Freeport, N.Y., for respondent.
Weisberg & Weisberg, Great Neck, N.Y. (Sidney A. Weisberg of counsel), appellant pro se.
Law Office of Marc M. Isaac, PLLC, Freeport, N.Y., for respondent.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and in quantum meruit, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered March 9, 2015, which denied its motion to vacate an order of the same court entered November 10, 2014, granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action seeking to recover in quantum meruit and, thereupon, for a new determination of the plaintiff's motion.
ORDERED that the order entered March 9, 2015, is affirmed, with costs.
A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon its failure to oppose a motion is required to demonstrate, through the submission of supporting facts in evidentiary form, both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Maniscalco v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 128 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 9 N.Y.S.3d 650; Bhuiyan v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 120 A.D.3d 1284, 1284, 993 N.Y.S.2d 62; Garcia v. Shaw, 118 A.D.3d 943, 988 N.Y.S.2d 674; Silva v. Honeydew Cab Corp., 116 A.D.3d 691, 983 N.Y.S.2d 298). While the defendant's explanation for its default may constitute excusable law office failure (see CPLR 2005; Madonna Mgt. Servs., Inc. v. R.S. Naghavi M.D. PLLC, 123 A.D.3d 986, 988, 999 N.Y.S.2d 858; CMI Clothesmakers v. Knopf, 91 A.D.2d 675, 677, 457 N.Y.S.2d 129), the defendant did not sustain its burden of demonstrating a potentially meritorious opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action to recover in quantum meruit (see Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. v. Gritsipis, 87 A.D.3d 216, 221, 927 N.Y.S.2d 349). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate the prior order entered upon its default.
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, COHEN and BARROS, JJ., concur.