Gurman v Fotiades

Annotate this Case
Gurman v Fotiades 2011 NY Slip Op 09275 Decided on December 20, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 20, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
2010-00640
(Index No. 273/02)

[*1]Helen Gurman, et al., respondents,

v

Daphne M.N. Fotiades, et al., appellants.




Daphne M.N. Fotiades, Great Neck, N.Y., appellant pro se.
David Moskoff, Great Neck, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Malen & Associates, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Jeffrey Wolstein
of counsel), for respondents.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover on two instruments for the payment of money only, brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated November 30, 2009, which denied their motion for leave to renew their prior motion to vacate a judgment of the same court (Klein, J.), entered August 13, 2003, which, upon their default in opposing the motion, was in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $20,000.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for leave to renew their prior motion to vacate a judgment entered upon their default in opposing the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendants failed to present "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2211[e][2]; see Levitin v A.R.B. Mgt. Servs., Inc., 48 AD3d 759).
RIVERA, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.