Assignment v. Medasorb Technologies, LLC

50 A.D.3d 342, 855 N.Y.S.2d 98
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 8, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by231 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 342 (Assignment v. Medasorb Technologies, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Assignment v. Medasorb Technologies, LLC, 50 A.D.3d 342, 855 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered December 29, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate its default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate a default judgment under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (Abate v Long, 261 AD2d 252 [1999]). Failure to file a change of address with the Secretary of State is generally not a reasonable excuse for such vacatur of a default judgment under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt, 292 AD2d 5 [2002]; Limited Liability Company Law § 301 [e]; § 303). While such a failure does not constitute a per se barrier to vacatur, and some flexibility may be allowed by the courts (Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143 [1986]), flexibility is not warranted in this instance, given the passage of 15 months during which defendant’s address on file with the Secretary of State was not updated. Moreover, defendant failed to establish a meritorious defense to the claim of an account stated (see Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP v Waters, 13 AD3d 51 [2004]; Merrill/ New York Co. v Celerity Sys., 300 AD2d 206 [2002]), and never properly pleaded a defense that he had paid the debt, either fully or partially (see CIT Group/Factoring Mfrs. Hanover v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 183 AD2d 454, 455 [1992]). Concur— Lippman, EJ., Friedman, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Related

Corley v. 337 W. 138 St. Holdings LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 02298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Romero v. 437 Prospect Assoc., LTD.
2021 NY Slip Op 03391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Cruz-Guzman v. 2380-2386 Grand Ave., LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 00006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Champion Dental, P.C.
2019 NY Slip Op 3754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Gomez v. One Sickles St. Co., LP
2018 NY Slip Op 7257 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Diggs v. Karen Manor Associates, LLC
117 A.D.3d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Olivaria v. Lin & Son Realty Corp.
84 A.D.3d 423 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.3d 342, 855 N.Y.S.2d 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/assignment-v-medasorb-technologies-llc-nyappdiv-2008.