Legal Opinion

Central City Brokerage Corp. v. Acosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 25, 2008PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. 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
  3. 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

  1. 371-381 PAS Assoc., LLC v. Moss & Moss LLPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2025
  2. Amcojor Realty Corp. v. Butter Mgt. LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
  3. Xiao Hong Wang v. Chi Kei LiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API