Rodriguez v Hernandez

Annotate this Case
[*1] Rodriguez v Hernandez 2020 NY Slip Op 51500(U) Decided on December 11, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 11, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2017-1702 K C

Francisca Rodriguez, Appellant,

against

Luis F. Hernandez, Respondent.

Francisca Rodriguez, appellant pro se. Luis F. Hernandez, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered July 31, 2017. The order denied plaintiff's motion to vacate a judgment of that court entered November 1, 2016, after an inquest, dismissing the action, in effect as premature.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover a $3,000 security deposit. After defendant failed to appear, an inquest was held (Robin S. Garson, J.), following which judgment was entered dismissing the action, in effect as premature, on the ground that plaintiff had commenced it before she moved out and, therefore, before the security deposit was due to be returned. Plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment, alleging that she "didn't like the way [her] case was dismissed in [defendant's] favor." Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court (Robin S. Garson, J.) dated July 31, 2017 denying plaintiff's motion.

As plaintiff failed to allege any grounds upon which relief from the judgment could have been granted (see CPLR 5015 [a]), the order was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 11, 2020

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.