Opinion
2008-2285 K C.
Decided January 28, 2010.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J. Silver, J.), entered November 24, 2008. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and STEINHARDT, JJ.
Plaintiff brought this small claims action seeking $5,000 for unpaid rent. Upon defendant's request, the trial was adjourned from February 5, 2008 to February 19, 2008. Defendant failed to appear on the adjourned trial date. After an inquest, a default judgment was entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $4,476.86. Defendant then brought a series of three motions seeking to vacate the default judgment and to restore the case to the calendar. Defendant failed to appear on the return date of the first motion and failed to properly serve the second motion. The third motion was denied based upon the Civil Court's finding that defendant had failed to offer a reasonable excuse for her default or demonstrate a meritorious defense. Defendant appeals from that order.
The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse sufficient to vacate a default lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see e.g. Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494). The Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding that defendant had failed to offer a reasonable excuse, as defendant had not offered any explanation for her failure to appear on the February 19, 2008 trial date. Similarly, the Civil Court properly found that defendant's conclusory statements were insufficient to establish a meritorious defense.
Contrary to defendant's contention on appeal, the Civil Court did have jurisdiction over this small claims case, as defendant is a resident of New York City (CCA 1801). The remainder of defendant's arguments either lack merit or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
Accordingly, we find that the Civil Court's order provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126), and the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.