Mona and Jack's Clothing, Inc. v. Ola, Inc.

133 A.D.3d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015) · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department · November 12, 2015 · No. 2014-02551

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed an order denying defendants’ motion in an action involving alleged moisture, mold, and mildew damage to clothing stored in leased premises. The court held that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion made the order absolute and that the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable excuse or a potentially meritorious cause of action. The court also held that defendants established entitlement to summary judgment and remitted the matter for a hearing on contractual costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Holdings

  1. A conditional order of preclusion becomes absolute when the party subject to it fails to comply timely with its directives.
  2. A party seeking relief from a conditional preclusion order must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action.
  3. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because they established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
  4. Under the parties' lease, which bound the plaintiff as a holdover tenant, the prevailing party in an action arising from the plaintiff's possession of the premises was entitled to costs incurred in the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiff's failure to comply with the conditional order of preclusion caused the order to become absolute and warranted dismissal of the complaint.
  2. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for noncompliance and a potentially meritorious cause of action sufficient to obtain relief from the preclusion order.
  3. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because they established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
  4. Whether defendants were entitled under the lease to recover costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (8)

  • Wilson v. Galcia Contr. & Restoration Corp., 10 N.Y.3d 827, 830(followed)
  • SRN Realty, LLC v. Scarano Architect, PLLC, 116 A.D.3d 693(followed)
  • Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d 74, 80(followed)
  • Hughes v. Brooklyn Skating, LLC, 120 A.D.3d 758(followed)
  • Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320(followed)
  • City of New York v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 298, 300(followed)
  • Visken v. Oriole Realty Corp., 305 A.D.2d 493, 494(followed)
  • Lynch v. Savarese, 217 A.D.2d 648, 649(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…