General
Roderick Borrie, Appellant, v. County of Suffolk, Respondent, and Town of Brookhaven, Appellant, et al., Defendant
88 A.D.3d 842931 N.Y.S.2d 510·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2011·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Roderick Borrie, Appellant, v County of Suffolk, Respondent, and Town of Brookhaven, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
[931 NYS2d 510]
[MAJORITY]
In opposition to the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant County of Suffolk upon its default in answering or appearing, the County was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949 [2008]; Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]; see also Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Gray v B. R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649, 650 [1983]). The County failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its default in answering or for its four-month delay in making an untimely motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see CPLR 320 [a]; 3211 [e]; Bennett v Hucke, 64 AD3d 529, 530 [2009]). On its motion for leave to renew, the County did not offer a reasonable justification for its failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior cross motion (see CPLR 2221 [d]). Furthermore, the new facts presented by the County failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action (see White v Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 AD3d 651, 652 [2007]; Everything Yogurt v Toscano, 232 AD2d 604, 606 [1996]; P & K Marble v Pearce, 168 AD2d 439 [1990]).
Accordingly, that branch of the County’s motion which was for leave to renew its opposition to the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to enter a default judgment against it should have been denied. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Eng, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.