Kouzios v Dery
2008 NY Slip Op 10590 [57 AD3d 949]
December 30, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


Spyridon Kouzios et al., Respondents,
v
Meir David Dery,Appellant.

[*1]Milton D. Ottensoser, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Seidenfeld Associates, LLC, New York, N.Y. (David Bolton of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), dated February 28, 2008, which granted theplaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability upon thedefendant's failure to answer and to set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion forleave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability upon the defendant's failure to answerand to set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages. To successfully oppose theplaintiffs' motion, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his defaultand the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Giovanelli vRivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005];Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864, 865 [2005]; Dinstber v Fludd,2 AD3d 670, 671 [2003]). Although a court has the discretion to accept law office failure asa reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), the defendant's conclusory, undetailed, anduncorroborated claim of law office failure did not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Matterof ELRAC, Inc. v Holder, 31 AD3d 636, 637 [2006]; McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d569 [2006]; Matter of Denton v City of Mount Vernon, 30 AD3d 600, 601 [2006];Solomon v Ramlall, 18 AD3d 461 [2005]). Moreover, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in rejecting the defendant's further claim that he assumed that he did notneed to answer the complaint because of purported settlement negotiations (see Antoine vBee, 26 AD3d 306 [2006]; Majestic Clothing Inc. v East Coast Stor., LLC, 18 AD3d516, [*2]518 [2005]). Furthermore, the defendant failed todemonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Belen, 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.