Court Opinion

ID: 9962533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:12.346542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.556914
License: Public Domain

Hernandez v Samouha
               2024 NY Slip Op 31361(U)
                     April 17, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153558/2018
                  Judge: John J. Kelley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                        NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:         HON. JOHN J. KELLEY                               PART                               56M
                                                                   Justice
            -------------------X                                              INDEX NO.            153558/2018
              DOMINGO A. HERNANDEZ
                                                                              MOTION DATE           04/12/2024
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                              MOTION SEQ. NO.            004
                                        -v-
              MOSHE SAMOUHA,                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                       MOTION
                                              Defendant.

            -------------------X
            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
            74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,81,83,84,85,92,93,94, 95,96, 97, 98,99, 100,101,102,103,104,105
            were read on this motion to/for                 VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD.

                     In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, arising from a slip-and-fall

           accident on the sidewalk in front of the defendant's building, the defendant moves pursuant to

           CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate his default in appearing at the call of the trial calendar on March 21,

           2023 and March 23, 2023, the decision and order after inquest dated September 25, 2023, and

           the judgment dated November 8, 2023, which was entered upon his default. He thereupon

           seeks to reinstate his answer, and to restore the action to the trial calendar. In the December

           11, 2023 order to show cause initiating this motion, the court, pending the hearing of the motion,
           -------
           temporarily restrained the plaintiff from levying upon and selling the defendant's real property

           located at 1985 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York. The plaintiff opposes the motion.

           The motion is denied, and the temporary restraining order set forth in the December 11, 2023

           order to show cause is vacated and dissolved.

                     To vacate a default in appearing at trial pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1 ), a party must

           demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to appear and a potentially meritorious defense

           (see Acevedo v Mojica, 200 AD3d 444, 444 [1st Dept 2021]; Cox v Marshall, 161 AD3d 1140,

           1141 [2d Dept 20181). The excuse proffered by the defendant is that he never received notice

             153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                   Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 004

[* 1]                                                       1 of 5
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           of the March 21, 2023 conference and trial date or the March 23, 2023 adjourned trial date. The

           court rejects this excuse.

                   This action was commenced by the plaintiff via electronic filing with the New York State

           Court Electronic Filing {NYSCEF) system. The defendant, initially appearing by counsel,

           answered the complaint on November 20, 2018. In an order dated and entered November 18,

           2020, the court granted the defendant's attorney permission to withdraw from his obligation of

           representation, and stayed the action for 60 days. On November 19, 2020, the defendant's

           former counsel served a copy of that order, with notice of entry, by regular mail upon the

           defendant at 23 Laurel Drive, Great Neck, New York. The defendant never requested that this

           action be converted to a non-electronic action. On March 1, 2021, the plaintiff filed a nonjury

           note of issue, and served it on the defendant at 50 Allenwood Road, Great Neck, New York, and

           1985 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York, which, according to the plaintiff, was never

           returned to the plaintiff's attorney as undeliverable. On January 11, 2022, the plaintiff's attorney

           wrote the court, inquiring as to whether a date for the nonjury trial had been scheduled, and

           copied the defendant by mailing it to him at the 23 Laurel Drive address. That letter also was

           never returned as undeliverable. Justice d'Auguste ultimately scheduled a pretrial conference

           and the commencement of the nonjury trial for March 21, 2023. On February 22, 2023, the

           plaintiff's attorney wrote to the defendant at the 23 Laurel Drive address, advising him of the

           March 21, 2023 conference and trial date, a letter that also never was returned as

           undeliverable.

                   Thus, contrary to the defendant's contention, set forth in his affidavit, only the note of

           issue was not mailed to his actual residence address at 23 Laurel Drive, Great Neck, New York,

           while all of the further notifications were indeed mailed that address, which he concedes is and

           has been his address for more than 20 years. To controvert the presumption of proper service

           of a notice, a defendant must allege a nonconclusory denial of service, pointing out the

           deficiencies in the proof of service, for example, that the address was wrong, or that the person
            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                   Page2 of5
            Motion No. 004

[* 2]                                                      2 of 5
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           serving the document made a misstatement in an affidavit or other proof (see Avis Rent A Car

           Sys., LLC v Scaramellino, 161 AD3d 572, 572 [1st Dept 2018]; Finkelstein Newman Ferrara

           LLP v Manning, 67 AD3d 538, 539 [1st Dept 2009]). The defendant's conclusory allegation of

           non-receipt of the various notices requesting a trial date, and informing him of a scheduled court

           date and appearance, is not sufficient to defeat the evidence of service. Even if he did not

           receive those letters or notices, there was no requirement that the plaintiff serve him with hard-

           copy documents in this electronically filed action. Once the defendant's attorney was relieved

           as counsel, it was the defendant's obligation to ascertain how he would be able to receive court

           filings and notices, and it was the defendant's obligation to register as a NYSCEF user so that

           he could be notified of any such filings or scheduled court appearances (see generally

           Progressive Gas. Ins. Co. v Richmond Capital Group, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 31955[U], *3, 2020

           NY Misc LEXIS 2810, *3-4 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Jun. 22, 2020]).

                   In any event, the court further concludes that the defendant failed to establish a

           potentially meritorious defense to the action. In his affidavit, the defendant asserted that,

           inasmuch as the plaintiff claimed to have fallen on "black ice" on the sidewalk in front of the

           subject apartment building, the defendant could not be held liable as the owner. In this regard,

           he asserted that "the description of the condition as 'black ice' is suspect and seems to indicate

           a condition for which I, as property owner, would not be liable for due to lack of notice." As at

           least one appellate court has noted, "[p]ersonal injury actions involving black ice are particularly

           challenging for plaintiffs. If the slippery condition is not readily visible and apparent, then, by

           definition, actual or constructive notice of it to the property owner is unlikely and perhaps

           impossible, depending on the circumstances of the case" (Steffens v Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist.,

           190 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2d Dept 2021 ]).

                  Nowhere in his complaint, however, did the plaintiff allude to "black ice." Rather, the

           plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the defendant was negligent in causing or permitting

            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                   Page 3 of 5
            Motion No. 004

[* 3]                                                      3 of 5
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                          "portions of said sidewalk, to be, to remain in such a defective condition; in failing
                          to properly maintain said sidewalk; in improperly shoveling, cleaning the snow/ice
                          and creating a dangerous condition; in failing to apprise and/or warn the public
                          and in particular the plaintiff of the aforementioned conditions; in failing to place
                          signs, barricades, warnings and/or other devices to apprise persons of the
                          aforementioned dangerous, unsafe condition thereat; in failing to remove said ice
                          and/or snow; in failing to apply sand, salt, or other melting and/or abrasive
                          materials so as to make the condition safe; in failing to place restrictive devices
                          around the aforementioned area to keep the public and in particular the claimant
                          from walking and/or slipping on this dangerous condition; in generally maintaining
                          said sidewalks in such a dangerous, defective and/or unsafe condition as to
                          cause the incident complained of; in creating and/or allowing and/or permitting a
                          hazardous condition to exist; in maintaining the sidewalk in such a manner so as
                          to create undue risks to people and in otherwise being careless and reckless
                          upon the premises; in creating and maintaining a hazard, menace, nuisance, and
                          trap thereat and in failing to comply with the statutes, ordinances, rules and
                          regulations provided for the safe and proper use of the sidewalk and
                          premises thereat; the above dangerous condition having existed for a long and
                          unreasonable period of time."

                  Even if the plaintiff had referred to "black ice," the "unique issues" posed by a "black ice"

           case "do not change the burden of proof which a property owner must meet in order to establish

           prima facie entitlement to summary judgment" (id. at 1004). A fortiori, such issues do not alter

           the burden that a defendant has in establishing a potentially meritorious defense that would

           permit the court to vacate a default. The defendant must still submit evidence that he did not

           create the condition by improper snow and ice removal, that he did not have actual notice of the

           condition, and that the condition was not visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time to

           permit him to observe and remedy it. Since the defendant did not expressly state that he did not

           have actual notice of the icy condition, and did not provide information as to when he last

           inspected the sidewalk in front of the building, when he or someone on his behalf last shoveled

           or cleared ice and snow from in front of the building, or what condition remained immediately

           after such clearing and shoveling activities, he cannot establish that he did not create the

           dangerous condition, or that he had neither actual nor constructive notice of it.

                  Accordingly, it is,

                  ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,

            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                 Page 4 of 5
            Motion No. 004

[* 4]                                                     4 of 5
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 12:55 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 153558/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   ORDERED that the temporary restraining order set forth in the court's December 11,

           2023 order to show cause be, and hereby is, vacated and dissolved.

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

                   4/17/2024
                     DATE                                                    ~

                                                                      ~
            CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
                                        GRANTED         0    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

            153558/2018 HERNANDEZ, DOMINGO A. vs. SAMOUHA, MOSHE                                   Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 004

[* 5]                                                       5 of 5