Central City Brokerage Corp. v. Acosta
N.Y. App. Div.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Most recently cited by1
- 2024373-381 PAS Assoc., LLC v. Moss & Moss LLP N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
Cites 3 cases
- Residential Board of Managers of the 99 Jane Street Condominium v. Rockrose Development Corp.
- Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co.
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L. L. P. v. Global Nuclear Services & Supply, Ltd.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Central City Brokerage Corporation, Respondent, v Ruben Acosta, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
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 claim he was not properly served (see CPLR 308 [6]; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v Global Nuclear Servs. & Supply, 280 AD2d 360, 361 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.