Levenzon v Morosov

Annotate this Case
[*1] Levenzon v Morosov 2007 NY Slip Op 51617(U) [16 Misc 3d 136(A)] Decided on August 20, 2007 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 20, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and BELEN, JJ
2006-1047 K C.

Sophia Levenzon, Respondent,

against

Dmitry Morosov, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin D. Garson, J.), entered April 26, 2006. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment.


Order affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action for rent owed for the remainder of the term of a lease, defendant failed to appear for trial, and a default judgment was entered against him after inquest in the sum of $4,422.50. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment, stating on a form affidavit only that he lost his job and moved back from Florida to New York, and that he never received notice of the trial. Upon such bare moving papers, the court below properly denied defendant's motion since defendant failed to establish a meritorious defense to the action.

We note, however, that in his brief on appeal, defendant has set forth further facts in support of his motion. While, in reviewing the propriety of the lower court's order, this court will not consider these dehors the record allegations, defendant, if he be so advised, may seek leave to renew his motion in the court below upon submission of a proper affidavit setting forth in appropriate detail the reasons for his failure to appear at trial and the nature and facts of any defense that he believes is available to him.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: August 20, 2007

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.