Gambardella v. Ortov Lighting, Inc.
This text of 278 A.D.2d 494 (Gambardella v. Ortov Lighting, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
In a proceeding to discharge a mechanic’s lien, Ortov Lighting, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), entered February 10, 2000, which denied its motion, in effect, to vacate a prior order of the same court entered April 20, 1999, granting the petition upon its failure to appear or submit written opposition to the petitioner’s motion pursuant to Lien Law § 39-a.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a [495]*495reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim or defense (see, Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310; Lovario v Vuotto, 266 AD2d 191; Wynne v Wagner, 262 AD2d 556). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Parker v City of New York, supra). We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default or a meritorious defense to the proceeding. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
278 A.D.2d 494, 717 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gambardella-v-ortov-lighting-inc-nyappdiv-2000.