Avrom R. Vann, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Lauterbach Garfinkel Damast & Hollander, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David J. Wolkensteinof counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated September 15, 2014, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated May 23, 2013, granting the defendant's unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her failure to oppose a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (seeCPLR 5015[a][1]; Dokaj v. Ruxton Tower Ltd. Partnership,91 A.D.3d 812, 813, 938 N.Y.S.2d 101; Karamuco v. Cohen,90 A.D.3d 998, 998, 934 N.Y.S.2d 855; Donovan v. Chiapetta,72 A.D.3d 635, 636, 897 N.Y.S.2d 908). The determination of what
constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion (see Karamuco v. Cohen,90 A.D.3d at 998, 934 N.Y.S.2d 855; Donovan v. Chiapetta,72 A.D.3d at 636, 897 N.Y.S.2d 908; Zarzuela v. Castanos,71 A.D.3d 880, 880, 895 N.Y.S.2d 857; Matter of Gambardella v. Ortov Lighting, Inc.,278 A.D.2d 494, 495, 717 N.Y.S.2d 923).
Here, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to oppose the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)to dismiss the complaint (seeCPLR 5015[a][1]). In any event, the plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant's motion (see Dokaj v. Ruxton Tower Ltd. Partnership,91 A.D.3d at 814, 938 N.Y.S.2d 101).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the order granting the defendant's unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., COHEN, DUFFYand LaSALLE, JJ., concur.