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.
American Opera Musical Theater Co., Inc., Also Known as International Concerts, Respondent, v. RussianHotline.com Inc., Appellant.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $10,000 for breach of contract. Upon defendant's failure to appear in this action, a default judgment was entered against it on September 22, 2022 in the sum of $10,031.66. In October 2022, defendant moved to vacate the default judgment. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion, finding that defendant had not established a reasonable excuse for failing to appear and had not set forth a potentially meritorious defense.
To prevail on its motion to vacate the judgment based on excusable default, defendant was required to demonstrate that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Torres v DeJesus, 197 AD3d 1260 [2021]). The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed if the record supports such a determination (see Green Apple Mgt. Corp. v Aronis, 55 AD3d 669 [2008]). Here, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's determination that defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default in appearing (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Tony's Towing Serv., Inc. v Swarts, 109 AD3d 475, 477 [2013]; Daniels v Coney Mgt., LLC, 63 Misc 3d 133[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50429[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider whether defendant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Lane v Smith, 84 AD3d 746, 748 [2011]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and HOM, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 3, 2023
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.
Docket No: 2023-188 K C
Decided: November 03, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, 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)