| Zimet v Bufano |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06425 [65 AD3d 1037] |
| September 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gary J. Zimet, Respondent, v Rosemary Bufano,Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Daniel E. Bertolino, P.C., Upper Nyack, N.Y. (Laurie A. Dorsainvil of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Rosemary Bufanoappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated June 27, 2008,which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered February 20, 2007,upon her default in answering, which, after an inquest on the issue of damages, was in favor ofthe plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $57,350.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion tovacate the judgment is granted.
In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a judgment entered upon default, a defendant isrequired to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense (see Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d544, 545 [2005]; Amato v FastRepair, Inc., 15 AD3d 429 [2005]; Costanza v Gold, 12 AD3d 551, 552 [2004]; Czarnik v Urban, 10 AD3d 627[2004]). In this case, the defendant provided a reasonable excuse for her default. In addition, thedefendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, including whether theclaims made by the plaintiff in this case had been settled by the parties in 2001 during priorlitigation. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.