Central City Brokerage Corp. v. Acosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Central City Brokerage Corp. v. Acosta

49 A.D.3d 455, 853 N.Y.2d 545

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by241 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 455 (Central City Brokerage Corp. v. Acosta) 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

Central City Brokerage Corp. v. Acosta, 49 A.D.3d 455, 853 N.Y.2d 545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his nonappearance and a meritorious defense to the action (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Even assuming that Acosta had a viable defense to plaintiffs demand for a broker’s commission, he has failed to show a reasonable excuse for his default (see Residential Bd. of Mgrs. of 99 Jane St. Condominium v Rockrose Dev. Corp., 17 AD3d 194 [2005]). In view of ample documentary evidence that Acosta held out the place of service as his address, he may not now reasonably claim he was not properly served (see CPLR 308 [6]; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v Global Nuclear Servs. & Supply, 280 AD2d 360, 361 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his nonappearance and a meritorious defense to the action (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Even assuming that Acosta had a viable defense to plaintiffs demand for a broker’s commission, he has failed to show a reasonable excuse for his default (see Residential Bd. of Mgrs. of 99 Jane St. Condominium v Rockrose Dev. Corp., 17 AD3d 194 [2005]). In view of ample documentary evidence that Acosta held out the place of service as his address, he may not now reasonably claim he was not properly served (see CPLR 308 [6]; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v Global Nuclear Servs. & Supply, 280 AD2d 360, 361 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 455, 853 N.Y.2d 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-city-brokerage-corp-v-acosta-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack