Youni Gems Corp. v. Bassco Creations Inc.

70 A.D.3d 454, 896 N.Y.S.2d 315
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 9, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 454 (Youni Gems Corp. v. Bassco Creations 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.

Bluebook
Youni Gems Corp. v. Bassco Creations Inc., 70 A.D.3d 454, 896 N.Y.S.2d 315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered May 14, 2008, insofar as it denied defendants’ motion to vacate a prior order striking their answer and counterclaim and a judgment entered against them following an inquest, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiffs’ appeal from so much of the order as granted defendants’ application to stay certain eviction proceedings pending in New York City Civil Court, Queens County, pending the resolution of this appeal, unanimously dismissed, without costs,-as academic.

The April 16, 2007 order striking defendants’ answer and counterclaim for failure to comply with a prior discovery order and directing an inquest on the issue of plaintiffs’ damages was the result of a contested motion on notice and therefore was directly appealable (see Achampong v Weigelt, 240 AD2d 247 [1997]; Spatz v Bajramoski, 214 AD2d 436 [1995]). Accordingly, defendants’ motion, to the extent that it sought vacatur of the April 16, 2007 order was procedurally defective (id.). Nevertheless, the procedural irregularity does not, under the circumstances, preclude a review of the April 16, 2007 order since defendants properly moved pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate their default at the inquest and the timely appeal from the denial of their motion to vacate the judgment brings up for review the April 16, 2007 order.

[455]*455The court properly struck defendants’ answer and counterclaim for their wilful failure to comply with the court’s disclosure order (see CPLR 3126 [3]). Defendants’ wilfulness may be inferred from their failure to comply with the court’s deadline, their failure to respond to plaintiffs’ repeated efforts to obtain discovery until plaintiffs brought a second motion seven months later and their submission of responses to plaintiffs’ interrogatories and document requests on the return date of the motion to strike that were incomplete and did not include relevant financial information (see John R. Souto, Co. v Coratolo, 293 AD2d 288 [2002]; Gutierrez v Bernard, 267 AD2d 65 [1999]; Helms v Gangemi, 265 AD2d 203 [1999]).

It is well settled that in order to vacate its default pursuant to CPLR 5015 a defendant must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear and a meritorious defense (see AWL Indus., Inc. v QBE Ins. Corp., 65 AD3d 904, 905 [2009]; Goldman v Cotter, 10 AD3d 289, 291 [2004]). While law office failure may serve as an acceptable excuse for vacating a default, “bare allegations of incompetence on the part of prior counsel cannot serve as the basis to set aside a [default] pursuant to CPLR 5015” (Spatz, 214 AD2d at 436).

Defendants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default at the inquest. Their prior attorney’s claimed medical reasons for failing to appear were not excusable given that defendants had contested the motion to strike and counsel was aware of the scheduled date of the inquest before he underwent surgery, and yet did not seek an adjournment prior to that date (see Fuchs v Midali Am. Corp., 260 AD2d 318 [1999]; Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am. v Code Beta Group, 204 AD2d 193 [1994]). Although the court delayed the inquest for several hours to enable substitute counsel to appear on defendants’ behalf, neither counsel nor defendants appeared. Moreover, defendants made no attempt to vacate their default until almost a year later when plaintiffs sought to enforce the judgment. “Given this persistent and willful inaction,” vacatur of defendants’ default is unwarranted (Pires v Ortiz, 18 AD3d 263, 264 [2005]; see Nahar v Awan, 33 AD3d 680 [2006]). Defendants’ claim that they were misled by their prior attorney was properly rejected by the court (see Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414 [1989]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Related

Zeledon v. Zeledon
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
ETrade Bank v. Plotch
2025 NY Slip Op 06898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Briar Hill Realty LLC v. Reisner
2024 NY Slip Op 51713(U) (NYC Civil Court, Bronx, 2024)
East Dr. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Lawrence
2024 NY Slip Op 34156(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Bey v. City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 05274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Harrison v. 345 Lenox, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 31926(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Tao Liu v. Sobin Chang
2024 NY Slip Op 02370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Stewart v. Petrolite Inc.
2022 NY Slip Op 06568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Lopez v. Mama's Fried Chicken, Inc.
202 A.D.3d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Yes Contr. Inc. v. CLST Enters. LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 02351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Agosto v. Western Beef Retail, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 6711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Le Monda v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 1546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Rivera v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation
142 A.D.3d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Imovegreen, LLC v. Frantic, LLC
139 A.D.3d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Cole-Hatchard v. Eggers
132 A.D.3d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Bendeck v. Zablah
105 A.D.3d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Pichardo-Garcia v. Josephine's Spa Corp.
91 A.D.3d 413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Berardo v. Guillet
86 A.D.3d 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Ap X-Power Media, Inc. v. Ocean Bridge, Inc.
83 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Grgurovic v. Controlled Combustion Co.
82 A.D.3d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A.D.3d 454, 896 N.Y.S.2d 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youni-gems-corp-v-bassco-creations-inc-nyappdiv-2010.