Expo Development Corp. v. 824 South East Boulevard Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Expo Development Corp. v. 824 South East Boulevard Realty Corp.

113 A.D.3d 549, 978 N.Y.2d 852

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 2014·Published

Opinion

Defendant failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for its failure to defend against this action to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien, since it offered no financial proof of its claim that it was unable to afford counsel (see Buro Happold Consulting Engrs., P.C. v RMJM, 107 AD3d 602 [1st Dept 2013]). Absent a reasonable excuse for the default, we need not determine whether defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Benson Park Assoc., LLC v Herman, 73 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Defendant failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for its failure to defend against this action to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien, since it offered no financial proof of its claim that it was unable to afford counsel (see Buro Happold Consulting Engrs., P.C. v RMJM, 107 AD3d 602 [1st Dept 2013]). Absent a reasonable excuse for the default, we need not determine whether defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Benson Park Assoc., LLC v Herman, 73 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Expo Development Corp. v. 824 South East Boulevard Realty Corp., 113 A.D.3d 549, 978 N.Y.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

113 A.D.3d 549 (Expo Development Corp. v. 824 South East Boulevard Realty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related