| Zaidi v New York Bldg. Contrs., Ltd. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02989 [61 AD3d 747] |
| April 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Zahid Zaidi, Respondent, v New York BuildingContractors, Ltd., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. LTC Electric, Inc.,Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Sacks & Sacks, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent. Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for third-partydefendant-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated April 10, 2008, which denied theirmotion to vacate their default in appearing at the trial and inquest, to restore the action to the trialcalendar, and to vacate a prior order of the same court (Satterfield, J.) dated January 23, 2008,granting, upon reargument, the unopposed motion of the third-party defendant for summaryjudgment dismissing the fourth cause of action in the third-party complaint.
Ordered that the order dated April 10, 2008 is reversed, on the law, the facts, and in theexercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the defendants' motion which was to vacate theirdefault in appearing at the trial and inquest and to restore the action to the trial calendar isgranted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on theissue of whether the defendants were properly served with the third-party defendant's motion forleave to reargue, and thereafter for a new determination of that branch of the defendants' motionwhich was to vacate the order dated January 23, 2008.
To vacate their default in appearing at the trial and inquest, the defendants were [*2]required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the defaultand a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Vasquez v New York City Hous.Auth., 51 AD3d 781, 782 [2008]; Conserve Elec., Inc. v Tulger Contr. Corp., 36 AD3d 747 [2007];Zeltser v Sacerdote, 24 AD3d541 [2005]). Although determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse generally lieswithin the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, reversal is warranted if that discretion isimprovidently exercised (see McHenryv Miguel, 54 AD3d 912, 913 [2008]; Ahmad v Aniolowiski, 28 AD3d 692, 693 [2006]; Matter of Zrake v New York City Dept. ofEduc., 17 AD3d 603 [2005]).
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of thedefendants' motion which was to vacate their default in appearing at the trial on January 25, 2008and at the inquest on the issue of damages held on the same date. The defendants presented areasonable excuse for their default based upon their principal's inability, due to the terminalillness and death of his wife, to retain new trial counsel after former counsel was relieved(see Du Jour v DeJean, 247 AD2d 370, 371 [1998]; Matter of McCaffrey vMcCaffrey, 210 AD2d 409 [1994]; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v NorthBroadway Holding Corp., 38 AD2d 856 [1972]). Moreover, the defendants' submissionswere sufficient to demonstrate the existence of meritorious defenses (see Rocovich vConsolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509 [1991]; Dooley v Peerless Importers, Inc., 42 AD3d 199 [2007];Magnuson v Syosset Community Hosp., 283 AD2d 404 [2001]).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendants' motionwhich was to vacate the prior order dated January 23, 2008, granting, upon reargument, thethird-party defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause ofaction in the third-party complaint. Absence of proper service of a motion is a sufficient andcomplete excuse for a default on a motion and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain themotion (see Daulat v Helms Bros.,Inc., 32 AD3d 410, 411 [2006]; Bianco v LiGreci, 298 AD2d 482 [2002];Welch v State of New York, 261 AD2d 537, 538 [1999]). The defendants and thethird-party defendant submitted conflicting evidence with respect to the issue of whether thethird-party defendant's motion for leave to reargue was properly served upon the defendants(see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; [c], [f] [1]; Welch v State of New York, 261 AD2d at538). Accordingly, a hearing and a new determination are necessary (see Daulat v HelmsBros., Inc., 32 AD3d at 411; LPN Consulting Corp. v Hamm, 202 AD2d 479 [1994];Sport-O-Rama Health & Fitness Ctr. v Centennial Leasing Corp., 100 AD2d 584, 585[1984]). Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Eng, JJ., concur.