| Arias v First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08085 [100 AD3d 940] |
| November 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vanessa Arias, Appellant, v First Presbyterian Church inJamaica, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Brodsky & Peck, Harrison, N.Y. (Beverly T. McGrath of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered April3, 2012, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant First Presbyterian Church inJamaica which was, in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering and for leave toserve a late answer, and thereupon vacated the determination in its prior order dated February 6,2012, granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter judgment on theissue of liability against the defendant First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica and setting the matterdown for an inquest on the issue of damages at the time of trial.
Ordered that the order entered April 3, 2012, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thelaw, with costs, that branch of the motion of the defendant First Presbyterian Church in Jamaicawhich was, in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering and for leave to serve a lateanswer is denied, and the determination in the order dated February 6, 2012, is reinstated.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must provide a reasonableexcuse for the default and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (seeCPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Ramirez v IslandiaExec. Plaza, LLC, 92 AD3d 747, 748 [2012]; Cooney v Cambridge Mgt. & Realty Corp., 35 AD3d 522 [2006];Ubaydov v Kenny's Fleet Maintenance,Inc., 31 AD3d 536 [2006]; Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876 [2005]). Here, therespondent failed to proffer any excuse for its default in appearing or answering and failed todemonstrate a reasonable excuse for its lengthy delay in moving, inter alia, in effect, to vacate itsdefault (see Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. vRaven Brands, Inc., 82 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2011]; Bethune v Prioleau, 82 AD3d 810, 810-811 [2011]; Yao Ping Tang v Grand Estate, LLC,77 AD3d 822, 823 [2010]). In view of the absence of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessaryto consider whether the respondent demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action(see Assael v 15 Broad St., LLC, 71AD3d 802, 803 [2010]; Segovia vDelcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2007]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]). Accordingly, thatbranch of the respondent's motion which was, in effect, to vacate its default in appearing oranswering and for leave to serve a late answer should have been denied. Dillon, J.P., Hall,Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.