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.
Beth Anna FERGUSON, appellant, v. SHU HAM LAM, et al., defendants, 104-50 48th Ave. Corp., respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated December 22, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendant 104-50 48th Avenue Corp. to vacate a judgment entered March 31, 2005, upon its default in answering the complaint, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $601,700.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant 104-50 48th Avenue Corp. (hereinafter 48 Corp.) to vacate the judgment entered upon its default in answering the complaint. While the failure of 48 Corp. to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State did not constitute a reasonable excuse to vacate its default under CPLR 5015(a), it was still entitled to vacatur under CPLR 317, which does not require a defendant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default. CPLR 317 permits a defendant who has been “served with a summons other than by personal delivery” to seek relief from a default upon a showing that it did not receive actual notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense (see Fatima v. Twenty Seven-Twenty Four Realty Corp., 53 A.D.3d 564, 861 N.Y.S.2d 768; Thakurdyal v. 341 Scholes St., LLC, 50 A.D.3d 889, 889-890, 855 N.Y.S.2d 641; Franklin v. 172 Aububon Corp., 32 A.D.3d 454, 454, 819 N.Y.S.2d 785). Here, the affidavit of the president of 48 Corp. and the weather report submitted by it set forth sufficient facts to warrant relief from its default under CPLR 317.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 03, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)