Sanders v Aronowitz

Annotate this Case
[*1] Sanders v Aronowitz 2007 NY Slip Op 52070(U) [17 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on October 23, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 23, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-1378 K C.

Nireen Sanders, Respondent,

against

Chaim Aronowitz a/k/a Charles Aronowitz, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered March 29, 2006, and from an order (Jack M. Battaglia, J.), entered May 15, 2006. The order entered March 29, 2006 denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment and the order entered May 15, 2006 in effect denied defendant's motion for leave to renew the motion to vacate the default judgment.


Orders affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action based upon the breach of the warranty of habitability, defendant appeals from orders denying his motions to vacate a judgment entered on
default. As defendant failed to establish the requisite meritorious defense to warrant vacating said default judgment (CPLR 5015 [a]; Greene v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 458 [2001]; Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310 [2000]), the requested relief was properly denied.

It should be noted that to the extent that defendant's second motion may be deemed as one for renewal, denial thereof was warranted without regard to the merits established therein as defendant failed to set forth a reasonable justification for failing to present such new facts in the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Orlando v City of New York, 21 AD3d 357 [2005]; Greene v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 458, supra). Accordingly, the orders appealed from should be affirmed. [*2]

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.

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.