Green v Redeemed Christian Church of God

Annotate this Case
[*1] Green v Redeemed Christian Church of God 2009 NY Slip Op 50867(U) [23 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on May 6, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 6, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570257/08.

Francisca Green, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Redeemed Christian Church of God Tabernacle of Restoration, Inc., Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), dated April 8, 2008, which denied its motion to vacate a default final judgment issued against it in a holdover summary proceeding.


Per Curiam.

Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), dated April 8, 2008, reversed, without costs, motion granted, default final judgment vacated, and matter remanded for further proceedings.

In light of the strong policy of the courts in favor of deciding cases on their merits (see Dokmecian v ABN AMRO N. Am, 304 AD2d 445 [2003]), we exercise our discretion to grant tenant's motion to vacate the default final judgment where it demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its brief default, as found by the motion court and now conceded by landlord, as well as a possible meritorious defense to the commercial holdover petition. In this latter regard, we note the prior unappealed denial of landlord's motion for summary judgment dismissing the related (and, so far as known, still pending) Supreme Court action previously instituted by tenant, with the court finding triable issues with respect to the enforceability of the contract of sale herein relied upon by tenant.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 06, 2009

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.