Manhattan Mini Stor., LLC v Ebrain Consulting, LLC

Annotate this Case
[*1] Manhattan Mini Stor., LLC v Ebrain Consulting, LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 50298(U) Decided on March 13, 2019 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 13, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570619/17

Manhattan Mini Storage, LLC,

against

Ebrain Consulting, LLC, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra R. Samuels, J.), entered February 20, 2018, after a hearing, which awarded petitioner counsel fees in the amount of $1,125 pursuant to Rule 130 (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]).

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Debra R. Samuels, J.), entered February 20, 2018, dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from an order or judgment entered on default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511) and a default occurred in Civil Court when respondent, a limited liability company, failed to appear by an attorney (see Matter of Pere v 1470-1488 U & R, 247 AD2d 477 [1998]; Lohmann v Castleton Gallery, 252 AD2d 482 [1988]), despite multiple warnings from Civil Court to retain counsel. Accordingly, we dismiss respondent-appellant's appeal for this reason, and on the further ground that respondent lacks standing to proceed pro se on this appeal (see CPLR 321; Matter of Tenants Comm. of 36 Gramercy Park v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 108 AD3d 413 [2013], lv dismissed 22 NY3d 990 [2013]; Michael Reilly Design, Inc. v Houraney, 40 AD3d 592 [2007]). The purported appearance by respondent's principal was a nullity (see Evans v Conley, 124 AD2d 981 [1986], appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 822 [1987]).


THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur

Decision Date: March 13, 2019



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.