Carrenard v. Mass
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cruz v. Narisi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Indymac Federal Bank FSB v. Quattrochi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Indymac Federal Bank FSB v. Quattrochi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Irwin Mortgage Corp. v. Devis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Bank of New York v. Segui (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- 425 East 26th Street Owners Corp. v. Beaton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Montefiore Medical Center v. Auto One Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Wunsch v. Cerwinski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Sime v. Ludhar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Rosario v. Beverly Road Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Levine v. Forgotson's Central Auto & Electric, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Nobre, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Lemberger v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Grade A Auto Body, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Labozzetta v. Fabbro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Henry Mass appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated January 12, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court (Silverman, J.H.O.) dated October 7, 2002, as, upon his default in appearing or answering the complaint, was in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $40,000.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate his default in appearing or answering the complaint pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (see Taylor v Saal, 4 AD3d 467 [2004]; Dominguez v Carioscia, 1 AD3d 396, 397 [2003]). The appellant’s mere denial that he was served with a summons and complaint in the action was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service raised by the affidavit of service (see Truscello v Olympia Constr., 294 AD2d 350, 351 [2002]; De La Barrera v Handler, 290 AD2d 476 [2002]). Indeed, he is bereft of a reasonable excuse for his default because he cannot challenge the validity of service at his prior residence address (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505 [5]; Choudhry v Edward, 300 AD2d 529 [2002]; Traore v Nelson, 277 AD2d 443, 444 [2000]). Furthermore, even if the appellant’s motion were treated as one made pursuant to CPLR 317 (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143 [1986]; Mann-Tell Realty Corp. v Cappadora Realty Corp., 184 AD2d 497, 498 [1992]), he failed to demonstrate that he did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action (see 96 Pierrepont v Mauro, 304 AD2d 631 [2003]; Waldon v Plotkin, 303 AD2d 581 [2003]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.