Central City Brokerage Corp. v. Acosta
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his nonappearance and a meritorious defense to the action (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Even assuming that Acosta had a viable defense to plaintiffs demand for a broker’s commission, he has failed to show a reasonable excuse for his default (see Residential Bd. of Mgrs. of 99 Jane St. Condominium v Rockrose Dev. Corp., 17 AD3d 194 [2005]). In view of ample documentary evidence that Acosta held out the place of service as his address, he may not now reasonably…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L. L. P. v. Global Nuclear Services & Supply, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Residential Board of Managers of the 99 Jane Street Condominium v. Rockrose Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
3Cited by3 opinions
- 371-381 PAS Assoc., LLC v. Moss & Moss LLPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2025
- Amcojor Realty Corp. v. Butter Mgt. LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- Xiao Hong Wang v. Chi Kei LiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019