Palisades Collection, LLC v Latchman

[*1] Palisades Collection, LLC v Latchman 2008 NY Slip Op 52384(U) [21 Misc 3d 142(A)] Decided on November 21, 2008 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 21, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
2007-1831 K C.

Palisades Collection, LLC, Respondent,

against

Gia Latchman, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), entered September 20, 2007. The order denied defendant's motion, in effect, to open a default and restore the case to the calendar.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action for breach of contract and upon an account stated, defendant initially defaulted, and judgment was entered by the clerk in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,117.45. Thereafter, defendant, appearing pro se, moved to vacate the judgment, which was then vacated on consent, subject to defendant serving and filing an answer. Defendant's answer consisted of a conclusory statement that she did not "owe this money." Thereafter, defendant never provided any discovery to plaintiff, despite plaintiff's demands therefor and an order entered on consent on October 5, 2006 directing defendant to provide discovery and deeming the answer stricken in the event defendant failed to comply within 30 days. Defendant brought two additional orders to show cause, each time to vacate an "inquest clerk" marking and restore the case to the trial calendar. By order entered September 20, 2007, the Civil Court denied defendant's final application to vacate an "inquest clerk" marking and restore the case to the calendar on the ground that defendant had failed to comply with the discovery order entered on consent, finding that defendant had offered no excuse for her default or any meritorious defense. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

In light of defendant's failure to provide any discovery to plaintiff or any more than a conclusory statement that she did not owe the money sought in the complaint, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant's motion. Accordingly, the order entered September 20, 2007 is affirmed.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 21, 2008