Booso v. Tausik Brothers, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Booso v. Tausik Brothers, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 2400, 148 A.D.3d 1108, 49 N.Y.S.3d 311

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 29, 2017

Docket2015-10234

StatusPublished

Cited by165 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2400 (Booso v. Tausik Brothers, 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

Booso v. Tausik Brothers, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 2400, 148 A.D.3d 1108, 49 N.Y.S.3d 311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baynes, J.), dated August 4, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate a judgment entered upon its failure to appear.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 317, a defaulting defendant who was “served with a summons other than by personal delivery” may be permitted to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense (CPLR 317; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d 974, 975 [2014]). A defendant need not, under CPLR 317, establish a reasonable excuse for the default (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d at 141-142; Li Xian v Tat Lee Supplies Co., Inc., 126 AD3d 424, 425 [2015]).

Here, the record reveals that neither the defendant nor its agent received actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Secretary of State, in time for the defendant to defend itself against this action (see Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d at 975). Moreover, there is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that the defendant was deliberately attempting to avoid service of process (see Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d 404, 405 [2002]). In addition, through the submission of an affidavit of the superintendent of the property, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d at 975; cf. Pevzner v 1397 E. 2nd, LLC, 96 AD3d 921, 922 [2012]). Finally, the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s motion was not timely is without merit (see Olivaria v Lin & Son Realty Corp., 84 AD3d 423, 425 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in *1109 granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the judgment entered on its default.

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baynes, J.), dated August 4, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate a judgment entered upon its failure to appear.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 317, a defaulting defendant who was “served with a summons other than by personal delivery” may be permitted to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense (CPLR 317; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d 974, 975 [2014]). A defendant need not, under CPLR 317, establish a reasonable excuse for the default (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d at 141-142; Li Xian v Tat Lee Supplies Co., Inc., 126 AD3d 424, 425 [2015]).

Here, the record reveals that neither the defendant nor its agent received actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Secretary of State, in time for the defendant to defend itself against this action (see Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d at 975). Moreover, there is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that the defendant was deliberately attempting to avoid service of process (see Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d 404, 405 [2002]). In addition, through the submission of an affidavit of the superintendent of the property, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d at 975; cf. Pevzner v 1397 E. 2nd, LLC, 96 AD3d 921, 922 [2012]). Finally, the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s motion was not timely is without merit (see Olivaria v Lin & Son Realty Corp., 84 AD3d 423, 425 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in *1109 granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the judgment entered on its default.

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2400, 148 A.D.3d 1108, 49 N.Y.S.3d 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booso-v-tausik-brothers-llc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack