From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weinberger v. Judlau Contracting

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 2003
2 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-00751.

Decided December 15, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cammer, J.), dated December 5, 2002, which denied its motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered January 3, 2002, upon its default in answering.

Biedermann, Hoenig, Massamillo Ruff, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Peter H. Cooper, Peter Hoenig, and Philip C. Semprevivo of counsel), for appellant.

Herschel Kulefsky (Ephrem Wertenteil, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondents.

Before: ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in answering must make a showing of a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense ( see Hazen v. Bottiglieri, 286 A.D.2d 708; Miles v. Blue Label Trucking, 232 A.D.2d 382). The only excuse offered by the defendant for its failure to timely serve an answer was delay caused by the defendant's insurance carrier, which was insufficient ( see Hazen v. Bottiglieri, supra; Miles v. Blue Label Trucking, supra). In addition, the defendant failed to demonstrate that it had a meritorious defense.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, since the default, the application for a default judgment, and inquest on damages all took place within the space of one year, the plaintiff was not obligated to provide it with separate notice of the inquest ( see CPLR 3215[g]; Stoltz v. Playquest Theater Co., 257 A.D.2d 758) . We note also that although the defendant was served with a copy of the order granting the default judgment and setting the matter down for an inquest, the defendant failed to take any action for over a year and a half.

The defendant's contention that the damage award was excessive is not properly before this court since it was not raised at the trial level ( see Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Kolodny, 269 A.D.2d 564), and we decline to reach it in the exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction.

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weinberger v. Judlau Contracting

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 2003
2 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Weinberger v. Judlau Contracting

Case Details

Full title:EZRIEL WEINBERGER, ET AL., respondents, v. JUDLAU CONTRACTING, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 15, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 338

Citing Cases

Citera v. Kramer

In relevant part. CPLR 5015(a)(1) provides that the "court which rendered ajudgment or order may relieve a…