From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Consolidated Construction Group, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 19, 2014
114 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-02-19

MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, et al., appellants.

DeLisa Law Group, PLLC, West Islip, N.Y. (Michael C. DeLisa of counsel), for appellants. Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Thomas J. McNamara and Erin J. O'Brien of counsel), for respondent.


DeLisa Law Group, PLLC, West Islip, N.Y. (Michael C. DeLisa of counsel), for appellants. Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Thomas J. McNamara and Erin J. O'Brien of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pines, J.), dated March 14, 2013, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated November 8, 2012, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the total sum of $147,728.06.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116;Yao Ping Tang v. Grand Estate, LLC, 77 A.D.3d 822, 822–823, 910 N.Y.S.2d 104). “A decision to vacate a prior order or judgment rests in the sound discretion of the court and will be upheld in the absence of an improvident exercise of that discretion” ( Epps v. LaSalle Bus, 271 A.D.2d 400, 705 N.Y.S.2d 388).

Here, the appellants did not offer a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at the inquest on damages ( see White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.3d 651, 651–652, 843 N.Y.S.2d 168;cf. Matter of Esposito, 57 A.D.3d 894, 895, 870 N.Y.S.2d 109). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider whether the appellants sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Maida v. Lessing's Rest. Servs., Inc., 80 A.D.3d 732, 733, 915 N.Y.S.2d 316;Abdul v. Hirschfield, 71 A.D.3d 707, 709, 898 N.Y.S.2d 44). RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Consolidated Construction Group, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 19, 2014
114 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Consolidated Construction Group, LLC

Case Details

Full title:MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED…

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

Date published: Feb 19, 2014

Citations

114 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1153
980 N.Y.S.2d 793

Citing Cases

Whitestone Constr. Corp. v. Nova Cas. Co.

ORDERED that the order entered March 8, 2013, is affirmed, with costs. To vacate a judgment entered upon…

Paulus v. Christopher Vacirca, Inc.

Thus, the appellant's claim that he was not required to serve an answer until after an amended complaint had…