Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
885-887 CAULDWELL LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 885 C. REALTY CORP., et al., Defendants, Rafael M. Santos also known as Rafael M. Pantoja, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered on or about January 30, 2025, granting the declarations and injunctions demanded in the verified complaint based on defendants’ failure to interpose an answer to the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper. On this Court's own motion, the matter is remanded to Supreme Court for determination of costs and/or sanctions to be assessed against defendant Rafael M. Santos, also known as Rafael M. Pantoja (Pantoja), and/or his counsel on this appeal in connection with Pantoja's prosecution of this appeal (Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] §§ 130–1.1, 130–1.2).
No appeal lies from a judgment entered upon a party's default (see CPLR 5511; Citibank, N.A. v. Kallman, 172 A.D.3d 489, 489, 97 N.Y.S.3d 863 [1st Dept. 2019]). “The proper procedure was to move to vacate the default and, if necessary, appeal from the denial of that motion” (Squitieri v. Kaufman, 193 A.D.3d 534, 534, 142 N.Y.S.3d 342 [1st Dept. 2021]).
We agree with plaintiff that this appeal was frivolous as it both was “completely without merit in law and [could] not be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” and “assert[ed] material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130–1.1[c][1]), [c][3]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination as to the amount of costs and/or sanctions to be imposed in connection with Pantoja's prosecution of this appeal (see Yenom Corp. v. 155 Wooster St. Inc., 33 A.D.3d 67, 75, 818 N.Y.S.2d 210 [1st Dept. 2006]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 5504
Decided: January 06, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)