Narrative Opinion Summary
In an appeal concerning a breach of contract and account stated, the defendant contests a Supreme Court order from March 6, 2012, which denied its motion to vacate a prior order from October 11, 2011. The earlier order had granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on the account stated claim and allowed them to enter a default judgment of $22,254.52 against the defendant. The appellate court affirmed the March 6 order, highlighting the defendant’s failure to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, as required under CPLR 5015(a)(1). Even accepting the defendant's excuse as reasonable, the court found no valid opposition to the motion. Additionally, a separate motion by the respondent to strike pages 6 through 29 of the appeal record, deemed to include matters outside the official record, was granted, and those pages were not considered in the appeal's determination.
Legal Issues Addressed
Exclusion of Materials Outside the Recordsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court granted the respondent's motion to strike pages from the appeal record that included materials not part of the official record, ensuring only relevant evidence was considered.
Reasoning: Additionally, a separate motion by the respondent to strike pages 6 through 29 of the appeal record, deemed to include matters outside the official record, was granted, and those pages were not considered in the appeal's determination.
Summary Judgment on Account Stated Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiffs were granted summary judgment on the account stated claim due to the defendant's lack of opposition, leading to a default judgment being entered.
Reasoning: The earlier order had granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on the account stated claim and allowed them to enter a default judgment of $22,254.52 against the defendant.
Vacating Default Judgments under CPLR 5015(a)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment was denied because it failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense, as required by CPLR 5015(a)(1).
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the March 6 order, highlighting the defendant’s failure to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, as required under CPLR 5015(a)(1).