| Rothstein v Collazo |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06675 [65 AD3d 1213] |
| September 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ted Rothstein et al., Appellants, v Christine Collazo et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Donna M.Bates and Ronald B. Goodman of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated July 2, 2008,as granted the defendants' motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered October 9,2007, which, upon the defendants' default in answering the amended complaint and after aninquest on damages, was in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of$413,000.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To vacate their default in answering the amended complaint, the defendants were required todemonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve an answer and a meritorious defense tothe action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Forward Door of N.Y., Inc. v Forlader, 41 AD3d 535 [2007]; Piton v Cribb, 38 AD3d 741[2007]; Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16AD3d 544, 545 [2005]). Here, the defendants provided a reasonable explanation for theirdefault. Moreover, the defendant Christine Collazo's detailed presentation of a meritoriousdefense went unrefuted by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercisedits discretion in granting the defendants' motion. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Balkin, Belen and Austin,JJ., concur. [See 20 Misc 3d 1116(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51365(U).]