Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Golf Glen Plaza Niles, Il. L.P. v. AMCOID USA, LLC
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 2935Docket: 215 CA 17-00869
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 27, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
David De Pirro, a defendant in Golf Glen Plaza Niles, Il. L.P. v. AMCOID USA, LLC, appealed a Monroe County Supreme Court order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment related to unpaid rent under a commercial lease agreement. De Pirro had executed a lease guaranty for the lessee, AMCOID USA, which included a forum selection clause stipulating that disputes would be resolved in Monroe County, New York. Following a series of lease assignments, the plaintiff initiated legal action in Monroe County in September 2013, alleging defaults by the defendants. De Pirro, a resident of Illinois, was served with summons in Illinois and subsequently entered a default judgment against him in January 2014. He attempted to vacate this judgment in Illinois without success and later sought relief in New York, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and that his default was excusable. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting De Pirro’s claims regarding personal jurisdiction. Additionally, De Pirro's appeal related to a motion for leave to renew was dismissed as abandoned due to the lack of any presented arguments. The court established jurisdiction over the defendant based on the Guaranty, which incorporated terms from the lease agreement, including a forum selection clause that consented to personal jurisdiction in New York. Additionally, the assignments signed by the defendant also included a forum selection clause for Monroe County, New York. The defendant's claims of forgery regarding the signatures on the assignments were deemed insufficient to support his case. The court denied the defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment as untimely, rejecting his argument that he had a reasonable excuse for the default. The defendant's assertion that he relied on his wife's cousin and her attorney to respond to the complaint was not considered a valid excuse. His unsubstantiated forgery claims did not demonstrate a meritorious defense. The court's ruling was entered on April 27, 2018.