Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

DOUBLE DIAMOND EQUITY, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nunzio VALERIE, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: November 10, 2005

PRESENT:  PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND SMITH, JJ. Asandrov Law Offices, Rochester (James D. Dimassimo of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Donald T. Cook, P.C., Buffalo (Frederick J. Gawronski of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

 Upon defendant's default, Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see CPLR 3213), pursuant to which plaintiff sought the amount due under a promissory note and guaranty executed by defendant.   Although defendant properly moved to vacate the judgment granting plaintiff's motion rather than taking an appeal from it (see CPLR 5015[a][1];  Ross Bicycles v. Citibank, 134 A.D.2d 181, 182, 520 N.Y.S.2d 769;  see also Marquise Collection v. M.A.S. Textiles Corp., 239 A.D.2d 470, 657 N.Y.S.2d 207), we nevertheless conclude that he failed to establish his entitlement to that relief.  “A court may vacate a default where the moving party demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense” (Matter of Macias v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 10 A.D.3d 396, 397, 780 N.Y.S.2d 780).   Defendant's own submissions establish that the default was intentional and thus not excusable (see Eretz Funding v. Shalosh Assoc., 266 A.D.2d 184, 185, 697 N.Y.S.2d 335;  P & K Marble v. Pearce, 168 A.D.2d 439, 562 N.Y.S.2d 560), and defendant failed to establish the existence of a meritorious defense (see Gittleson v. Dempster, 148 A.D.2d 578, 579, 539 N.Y.S.2d 46, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 603, 542 N.Y.S.2d 518, 540 N.E.2d 713).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.