Simpson v Town of Southampton
2007 NY Slip Op 06859 [43 AD3d 1033]
September 18, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 7, 2007


Robert Simpson et al., Respondents,
v
Town ofSouthampton et al., Appellants.

[*1]Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (John M. Denby of counsel), forappellants.

Esseks, Hefter & Angel, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (William W. Esseks, Anthony C. Pasca, andLisa J. Ross of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants are bound by a certainrestrictive covenant, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated August 7, 2006, as denied those branchesof their motion which were to vacate an order of the same court dated June 20, 2005, granting,without opposition, the plaintiffs' motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the first twocauses of action on the issue of liability, and upon vacatur, to deny the plaintiffs' motion andgrant their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In seeking to vacate their default in opposing the plaintiffs' motion, the defendants wererequired to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense to the action (seeCPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138,141 [1986]; Canty v Gregory, 37AD3d 508 [2007]; Hageman vHome Depot U.S.A., Inc., 25 AD3d 760, 761 [2006]). The defendants' conclusoryexcuse of law office failure did not constitute a reasonable excuse for their failure to oppose themotion (see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. vHolder, 31 AD3d 636 [2006]; Grezinsky v Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 AD2d542 [2003]). The defendants also failed to demonstrate any causal connection between the TownAttorney's illness and the default (see Dowling Textile Mfg. Co. v Land, 179 AD2d 621[1992]). Accordingly, the branch of the defendants' motion which was to vacate their default[*2]was properly denied.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants' remaining contention.Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.