EZ Maintenance Ltd. v Becker
Annotate this CaseDecided on November 29, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., McKeon, Schoenfeld, JJ
570728/10.
EZ Maintenance Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellant,
against
Stuart Becker Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of
New York, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), dated July 13, 2010, which denied its
motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it.
Per Curiam.
Order (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), dated July 13, 2010, reversed, without costs, motion granted, complaint reinstated and matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings.
Under the particular facts underlying this small claims action, the court should have granted plaintiff's motion to vacate the default judgment entered against it, since plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated the preconditions to relief under CPLR 5015(a)(1). Notably, plaintiff presented a compelling excuse for its default the inability of its principal witness to appear for trial was occasioned by the birth of the witness' child.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: November 29,
2010
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.