A New York appellate court has ruled in favor of Santorelli Builders, LLC, allowing the company to continue its legal battle against 146 Norris Realty, LLC. The decision, issued on September 16, 2026, overturned a previous default judgment that had favored Norris Realty. This ruling is significant for Santorelli Builders as it reinstates their breach of contract claim, which could lead to potential damages in the ongoing dispute.

The court's decision affects not only Santorelli Builders but also sets a precedent regarding how courts handle defaults in civil cases. It emphasizes the importance of proper legal notification and the rights of parties involved in litigation.

Background

The dispute began when Santorelli Builders filed a lawsuit against 146 Norris Realty in March 2024. The company sought damages for breach of a construction contract. As part of the legal process, Santorelli Builders filed a notice of pendency against the property involved in the case.

In response, Norris Realty submitted an answer that included counterclaims against Santorelli Builders. The case progressed through the courts, and in October 2024, the Supreme Court allowed Santorelli Builders' former attorney to withdraw from the case. The court scheduled a conference for January 22, 2025, but Santorelli Builders did not appear, leading to a default judgment against them.

On May 8, 2025, the court entered a judgment in favor of Norris Realty for $199,420.92, effectively dismissing Santorelli Builders' complaint against them. Following this judgment, Norris Realty sought to cancel the notice of pendency and requested costs and expenses related to the case.

The Ruling

The appellate court reviewed the circumstances surrounding Santorelli Builders' absence at the January 2025 conference. The court found that the only notice sent to Santorelli Builders was mailed to the home address of one of its principals, Angelo Santorelli. The court noted that the notice did not clearly indicate it was sent in care of Santorelli, leading to confusion about the addressee.

The court ruled, "In the absence of actual notice of a conference or hearing date, a party could not have been in default for failing to appear at that conference or hearing."

This ruling highlighted that without proper notice, Santorelli Builders could not be held accountable for missing the court date. The court also pointed out that even if there had been a default, it was early in the proceedings, and there was no evidence of prejudice against Norris Realty.

Judges Betsy Barros, Lara J. Genovesi, Helen Voutsinas, and Carl J. Landicino concurred in the decision, affirming the lower court's order to vacate the default judgment against Santorelli Builders.

Impact

The ruling allows Santorelli Builders to proceed with their case against 146 Norris Realty, potentially recovering damages related to the breach of contract. This decision underscores the legal principle that parties must receive proper notification of court proceedings to avoid default judgments.

This case may also influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the requirements for notifying parties about court dates. It reinforces the idea that a lack of proper notice can invalidate a default judgment, ensuring that parties have the opportunity to present their case.

What's Next

Following this ruling, 146 Norris Realty may consider further legal options, including the possibility of appealing the decision. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.