29-31 North Station Plaza v Shmulick Construction Corporation

29-31 N. Sta. Plaza v Shmulick Constr. Corp. 2004 NY Slip Op 05233 [8 AD3d 472] June 14, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2004

29-31 North Station Plaza, Respondent,
v
Shmulick Construction Corporation et al., Appellants.

—[*1]

In an action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, the defendants, Shmulick Construction Corporation, Shmulick Contracting Corporation, and Shmulick Yizhary, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated May 22, 2003, which denied the motion of the defendants Shmulick Contracting Corporation and Shmulick Yizhary to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered February 14, 1996, entered upon their default in opposing the plaintiff's motion to strike their answer, as is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $101,374.67.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Shmulick Construction Corporation is dismissed, as it is not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants Shmulick Contracting Corporation and Shmulick Yizhary (hereinafter the appellants) did not proffer a valid excuse for their failure to respond to the plaintiff's discovery demands, to comply with court orders, and to oppose the plaintiff's motion to strike their answer (see MRI Enters. v Amanat, 263 AD2d 530 [1999]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]; Lauro v Cronin, 184 AD2d 837 [1992]). Moreover, they did not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense (see [*2]MRI Enters. v Amanat, supra). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to vacate the default.

The appellants' remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.