Case ID: ad2d_297/html/0535-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary M. Gavalas, Respondent, v D. Podelson et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
    [746 NYS2d 902]
   A default judgment was not pursued within one year of the defendants-appellants’ failure to respond to plaintiffs summons with notice. Thereafter, in response to defendants-appellants’ resulting motion to dismiss, the standard was not met pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted defendants-appellants’ motion and dismissed the underlying action insofar as asserted against them (see Hoppenfeld v Hoppenfeld, 220 AD2d 302; contrast Truong v All Pro Air Delivery, 278 AD2d 45). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.