| Karamuco v Cohen |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09598 [90 AD3d 998] |
| December 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Astrit Karamuco et al., Appellants, v Oz Cohen et al.,Defendants, and Janel Celaj, Respondent. |
—[*1] Rabinowitz & Galina, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael M. Rabinowitz of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal froman order of Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), entered December 23, 2010, whichdenied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated August 10, 2010, granting,without opposition, the motion of the defendant Janel Celaj for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint insofar as asserted against her.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To vacate their default in opposing the motion of the defendant Janel Celaj for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, the plaintiffs were required todemonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious opposition tothe motion (see Donovan vChiapetta, 72 AD3d 635 [2010]; Aurora Loan Servs. v Grant, 70 AD3d 986 [2010]). Thedetermination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion (see Zarzuela v Castanos, 71 AD3d880 [2010]; Santiago v New YorkCity Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393, 394 [2004]). Here, the record supports theSupreme Court's determination that the plaintiffs' claim of law office failure was sufficient toexcuse their failure to oppose Celaj's motion for summary judgment. However, the plaintiffsfailed to come forward with any affidavits or documentary evidence of their own to demonstratethat they had a potentially meritorious opposition to Celaj's motion. Accordingly, the courtprovidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate their default.Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.