From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spadafora v. Home Depot, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 2001
287 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted September 26, 2001.

October 9, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated August 10, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated April 3, 2001, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (see, CPLR 5517[b]).

Wolfson Greller Egitto Kitchen Klein, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N Y (Joseph E. Egitto of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas M. Bona, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Robert H. Steindorf, James C. Miller, and Joelle N. Duval of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 10, 2000, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 3, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated April 3, 2001, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Where a defendant defaults in appearing or answering and a plaintiff fails to enter a judgment upon the default within one year thereof, the action is deemed abandoned (see, CPLR 3215[c]). Under such circumstances, to avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned, the plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking to enter a judgment, and demonstrate that the complaint is meritorious (see, Manago v. Giorlando, 143 A.D.2d 646). The plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to seek leave to enter a judgment within one year of the defendant's default. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c).

BRACKEN, P.J., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Spadafora v. Home Depot, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 2001
287 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Spadafora v. Home Depot, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PAUL SPADAFORA, APPELLANT, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Oct 9, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 635

Citing Cases

Turnbull v. Summit Entertainment Corp.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is…

Oparaji v. Madison Queens-Guy Brewer

ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs. To avoid dismissal of an abandoned claim under CPLR…