65-60 Realty Co., LLC v. Towaki Komatsu

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

65-60 Realty Co., LLC v. Towaki Komatsu

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 51781(U)

StatusPublished

This text of 65-60 Realty Co., LLC v. Towaki Komatsu (65-60 Realty Co., LLC v. Towaki Komatsu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

65-60 Realty Co., LLC v. Towaki Komatsu, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

65-60 Realty Company, LLC, Respondent,

against

Towaki Komatsu, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Inez Hoyos, J.), entered January 5, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied tenant's motion to vacate a default final judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding, tenant failed to appear on an adjourned trial date, and, following an inquest, a default final judgment was entered awarding landlord possession and arrears. Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying his motion to vacate the default final judgment.

It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Scarlett v McCarthy, 2 AD3d 623 [2003]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the motion court's sound discretion (see Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393, 394 [2004]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). Here, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding that tenant's unsupported assertions did not constitute a reasonable excuse for tenant's failure to appear on the adjourned trial date (see Matter of Evan Matthew A. [Jocelyn Yvette A.], 91 AD3d 538 [2012]; Guerre v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of NY, 300 AD2d 29 [2002]; Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v Glauber, 39 Misc 3d 142[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50768[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to consider whether tenant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519 [2007]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 07, 2016

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

65-60 Realty Company, LLC, Respondent,

against

Towaki Komatsu, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Inez Hoyos, J.), entered January 5, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied tenant's motion to vacate a default final judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding, tenant failed to appear on an adjourned trial date, and, following an inquest, a default final judgment was entered awarding landlord possession and arrears. Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying his motion to vacate the default final judgment.

It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Scarlett v McCarthy, 2 AD3d 623 [2003]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the motion court's sound discretion (see Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393, 394 [2004]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). Here, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding that tenant's unsupported assertions did not constitute a reasonable excuse for tenant's failure to appear on the adjourned trial date (see Matter of Evan Matthew A. [Jocelyn Yvette A.], 91 AD3d 538 [2012]; Guerre v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of NY, 300 AD2d 29 [2002]; Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v Glauber, 39 Misc 3d 142[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50768[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to consider whether tenant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519 [2007]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 07, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65-60 Realty Co., LLC v. Towaki Komatsu, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/65-60-realty-co-llc-v-towaki-komatsu-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack