| Glukhman v Bay 49th St. Condominium, LLC |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07271 [100 AD3d 594] |
| November 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Aleksandr Glukhman, Respondent, v Bay 49th St.Condominium, LLC, et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Malvina Lin, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, aslimited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera,J.), dated April 22, 2011, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate a judgmentof the same court dated November 26, 2010, entered, in effect, upon their default in opposing theplaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126, among other things, to preclude them from presentingevidence at trial, and upon their default in opposing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgmenton the complaint, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of$111,745.50.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To prevail on that branch of their motion which was to vacate the judgment entered upontheir defaults, the defendants were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for thedefaults and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a]; People's United Bank v Latini TuxedoMgt., LLC, 95 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2012]; Canty v Gregory, 37 AD3d 508, 508 [2007]). The determination ofwhat constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the SupremeCourt (see Morales v Perfect Dental,P.C., 73 AD3d 877, 878 [2010]), and in exercising that discretion, the court may acceptlaw office failure as an excuse (see CPLR 2005; Star Indus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904[2008]). However, law office failure should not be excused where " 'a default results not from anisolated, inadvertent mistake, but from repeated neglect' " (Gutman v A to Z Holding Corp., 91 AD3d 718, 719 [2012],quoting Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414, 417 [1989]), or where allegations of law officefailure are vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated (see Cantor v Flores, 94 AD3d 936, 936-937 [2012]; see StarIndus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d at 904).
Here, the defendants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their repeated defaults(see Gutman v A to Z Holding Corp., 91 AD3d at 719; North Fork Bank vMartin, 257 AD2d 613, 613 [1999]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569[1997]; Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d at 417; see also Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d 678, 678 [2006];Fischman v Gilmore, 246 AD2d 508, 508 [1998]; Morel v Clacherty, 186 AD2d638, 639 [1992]).[*2]
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branchof the defendants' motion which was to vacate the judgment entered upon their defaults, which isin favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $111,745.50. Eng, P.J., Florio,Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 31 Misc 3d 1226(A), 2011 NY Slip Op50852(U).]