Opinion
2001-11097
Submitted September 18, 2002.
October 7, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Asia L. Smith appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated October 15, 2001, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court dated June 11, 2001, granting, on her default, the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment against her, upon her default in answering.
Robert P. Tusa (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellant.
Huttner, Mingino Budashewitz (Michael J. Mingino and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
By making an earlier motion (erroneously denominated as a cross motion) to compel acceptance of her answer, bereft of any jurisdictional defense, the appellant waived the only basis she would have had to vacate her default in this action (see International Business Machs. Corp. v. Murphy O'Connell, 172 A.D.2d 157, 158). Had the appellant preserved her jurisdictional defense, she might have been entitled to a hearing on the issue of the propriety of the service of process whether or not she showed a meritorious defense (see Laurenzano v. Laurenzano, 222 A.D.2d 560). While the appellant may have established a meritorious defense (see Anamdi v. Anugo, 229 A.D.2d 408), she proffered neither an excuse for her default in responding to the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment nor any reasonable excuse for her default in the action (see Gray v. B.R. Trucking Co., 59 N.Y.2d 649, 650; cf. Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141; Mita v. Bianchi, 286 A.D.2d 376). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant's motion.
FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, FRIEDMANN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.