Sobon v Soliman

[*1] Sobon v Soliman 2015 NY Slip Op 50140(U) Decided on February 20, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 20, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570776/14

Andrzej Voy Sobon, Plaintiff, - and - Lev Vyshedsky, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Sultan Soliman, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant Soliman appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), dated December 13, 2013, which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment, entered after inquest, in favor of plaintiff Lev Vyshedsky in the principal sum of $110,000.

Per Curiam.

Order (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), dated December 13, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs.We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment. The default was not an isolated, inadvertent mistake, but the latest in a series of nonappearances by defendant's (now-former) attorney over the course of the litigation that should not be excused (see Kasumu v City of New York, 78 AD3d 560 [2010]; Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d 553 [2001]). Moreover, defendant failed to show a meritorious defense. Having pled guilty to criminal misdemeanor charges of third-degree assault based on his plea admission that he bit plaintiff Vyshedsky on the nose, defendant is collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of liability in connection with plaintiff's present civil claims for assault and battery (see Morrow v Gallagher, 113 AD3d 827, 828-829 [2014]).

We are unable to render an informed decision on the merits of defendant's claim that the damages awarded at inquest were excessive, inasmuch as defendant, as appellant, failed to meet his obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Sebag v Narvaez, 60 AD3d 485 [2009]), including the transcript of the inquest (see CPLR 5526; Smith v Imagery Media, LLC, 95 AD3d 1204 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 20, 2015