[*1]
1864 7th Ave. HDFC v Griffin
2005 NY Slip Op 50316(U)
Decided on March 10, 2005
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 10, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P.
HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570071/04

1864 7th Avenue HDFC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

Ethel Griffin, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF NEW YORK COUNTY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ENA GRIFFIN, JANE DOE, RACHEL ROE, Respondents, -and- CHARLES WAGNER, Respondent-Appellant.


Respondent Wagner appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated January 28, 2004 (Gerald Lebovits, J.) which denied his motion to vacate a default final judgment and imposed costs on him in a holdover summary proceeding.


PER CURIAM:

Order dated January 28, 2004 (Gerald Lebovits, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs. [*2]

Respondent Wagner's motion to vacate the default final judgment entered against him was properly denied since respondent failed to make a sufficient factual showing of a meritorious defense to the holdover petition, offered no reasonable excuse for failing to appear on the day set "final" for trial, and did not adequately explain his failure to seek vacatur relief until after the expiration of the generous stay period issued by the court on the default date in the presence of respondent's then attorney. Nor, on the existing record, is there cause to disturb the court's post-hearing determination that the excuse offered by respondent — an excuse substantially at odds with prior statements made by respondent's former counsel in connection with motion practice before this Court — constituted a "deception" and was frivolous, thus warranting an award of costs to petitioner pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see Rosendale v Aramian, 269 AD2d 209 [2000]. We have considered and rejected respondent's remaining arguments.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: March 10, 2005