By: Gonzalez, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.18-060 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. ALEXIS MICHEL SALETA CERDA, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Frances Y. Wang, J.), rendered July 12, 2017, affirmed.The accusatory instrument, which in this case was required to meet the standards that apply to a misdemeanor complaint (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]), was jurisdictionally valid, since it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (see Penal Law §170.20). At the pleading stage, defendant’s knowledge that the temporary license plate on his automobile was forged can be inferred from his conflicting explanations and the suspicious circumstances under which he came into possession of the plate (see People v. Johnson, 65 NY2d 556, 562 [1985]; People v. Kende, 58 Misc 3d 133[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51787[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1116 [2018]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.October 12, 2018
By: Gonzalez, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.16-510 DENNIS GRIGGS, plf-res, v. PHILLIP BRODSKY, GABRIEL BRODSKY, THEODORE BYE, PAUL BRODSKY, HENRY LORING, JEROME NASOFF, SIDNEY SCHNEIDER, FRANK PACKER, DOREL COMPANY AND BENJAMIN/ADELE ROBERTS CO., D/B/A 25TH REALTY ASSOCIATES AND PAGE MANAGEMENT, INC., def-app — Order (William Franc Perry, J.), entered February 4, 2016, reversed, without costs, motion denied and default judgment reinstated.More than 18 years after commencement of this action, arising from a February 13, 1995 slip and fall, defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. The motion was granted on default. Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to vacate the default should have been denied. Although plaintiff’s counsel set forth a medical excuse for failing to oppose the dismissal motion, the moving papers fail to set forth a reasonable excuse for failing to file a notice of trial (see Caraballo v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 89 AD3d 638, 639 [2011]) or for the extensive delays in prosecuting this action (see Walker v. City of New York, 46 AD3d 278, 280-281 [2007]). Moreover, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the merits of the action, and his attempt to cure this deficiency in his reply papers was improper (see Simak v. Simak, 121 AD3d 1090, 1091 [2014]; Bustamante v. Green Door Realty Corp., 69 AD3d 521, 522 [2010]).We note the absence of a respondent’s brief.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.OCTOBER 12, 2018
