Koppell River Realty, Inc. v. Rodriguez

85 A.D.3d 520, 925 N.Y.S.2d 70
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 14, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J. ), entered April 9, 2010, which, in this action seeking to recover broker commissions relating to the sale of certain real property, granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against defendants-appellants Finger and Gutierrez and denied appellants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that appellants’ tactical choice not to answer the complaint was not an excusable mistake (see 114 W. 26th St. Assoc. LP v Fortunak, 22 AD3d 346 [2005]; see also 300 W. 46th St. Corp. v Clinton Pious. W. 46th St. Partners, L.P., 19 AD3d 136 [2005]). Furthermore, since liability against appellants has been effectively decided by their default, it is appropriate to sever the inquest as against them from the action against the remaining defendant (see CPLR 3215 [a]).

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Acosta, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Koppell River Realty, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 85 A.D.3d 520, 925 N.Y.S.2d 70 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

85 A.D.3d 520 (Koppell River Realty, Inc. v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D. Penguin Bros. Ltd. v. City Natl. Bank
2025 NY Slip Op 01863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Henderson-Jones v. City of New York
55 Misc. 3d 401 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)