John Harris P.C. v. Krauss

87 A.D.3d 469, 928 N.Y.2d 295
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 18, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 469 (John Harris P.C. v. Krauss) 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
John Harris P.C. v. Krauss, 87 A.D.3d 469, 928 N.Y.2d 295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

The court erred in granting defendant’s motion pursuant to CFLR 5015 (a) (1). Defendant did not submit competent evidence to establish either a reasonable excuse for the default or a meritorious defense. Defendant’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion was not properly notarized, and therefore none of the allegations therein should have been considered by the motion court. Though the affidavit purports to be notarized by one “William E. Morris, notary public,” Department of State records submitted by plaintiff indicate that no such person is licensed in New York as a notary public.

Defendant’s status as an attorney cannot salvage the affidavit. While an attorney is entitled to “serve and file an affirmation bearing his signature alone in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit” under CFLR 2106, this provision is unavailing here because “even those persons who are statutorily allowed to use such affirmations cannot do so when they are a party to an action” (Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799, 801 n [1981]).

Even if defendant’s papers were procedurally proper, they do not establish a reasonable excuse or a meritorious defense necessary to vacate a default judgment. His failure to respond to the summons with notice was evidently a tactical decision. Though defendant alleges, on this motion, that he had disputed plaintiffs billings, the record does not reflect this. Indeed, defendant confirmed that he would pay amounts owing, without registering any objection to the amount stated.

We have considered the remaining contentions and find them [470]*470unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v. New York City Health & Hosps.
2024 NY Slip Op 32820(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Matter of Law Off. of Cyrus Joubin, Esq. v. New York City Dept. of Corr.
2024 NY Slip Op 32165(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Billig v. Schwartz
2023 NY Slip Op 03192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v. Baroi
2023 NY Slip Op 01142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Beltran v. Commercial Bldg. Maintenance Corp.
2022 NY Slip Op 04115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Capsouto v. Capsouto
164 N.Y.S.3d 99 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Pollack v. Ovadia
2019 NY Slip Op 4491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Spano v. FlatRate Moving Network, LLC.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Arctic Glacier USA, Inc. v. Good Enough To Eat Uptown, Ltd.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
BBCN Bank v. 12th Avenue Restaurant Group, Inc.
2016 NY Slip Op 7593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Johnson-Roberts v. Ira Judelson Bail Bonds
140 A.D.3d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.3d 469, 928 N.Y.2d 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-harris-pc-v-krauss-nyappdiv-2011.