PEREZ v. MEISNER MEISNER LLC (2026)

NYSCEF Doc. No. 2-53

PAPERS NYSCEF Doc. No. NUMBERED

Order to Show Cause, Affirmations & Exhibits 1

Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits 2,3

Affirmation in Reply & Exhibits 4

Based upon the argument presented and the record before the court, Respondent-owners' Order to Show Cause is granted and the money judgment entered on August 21, 2025, against Respondent-owners is vacated.

Respondent-owners, by their attorney, present a reasonable excuse for not appearing on the assigned court date and a meritorious defense. In this proceeding before counsel for Respondent-owners had appeared, a default order to correct was issued. The April 24, 2025 default order to correct, entered on May 12, 2025, provides that the proceeding may be restored to the calendar to obtain a hearing on the issue of civil penalties (Doc.13). The referenced order, provides that the proceeding may be restored by efiling a notice of motion or an order show cause. The proceeding was adjourned solely to address the harassment claim. The harassment claim was severed and was transferred to the trial part. The Petitioner did not file a motion or an order to show cause for a civil penalties hearing. As such a hearing on the imposition of civil penalties was not held and the civil penalties was determined on the papers presented.

Whether the application before the court is framed as a motion to vacate a default judgment or as a motion to reargue, the court must evaluate and consideration the evidence presented in accordance with CPLR § 5015, requiring a showing of a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense. See, Talsania v Sehgal, 79 Misc 3d 130[A] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023]. “It does not matter how a motion is titled by an attorney. What matters is what the motion actually is in substance,” (Citibank, N.A. v Kerszko, 203 AD3d 42, 55 [2d Dept 2022]). See also, U.S. Bank, N.A. v Blagman, 188 AD3d 1284 [2d Dept 2020].

The purpose of civil penalties authorized by the Housing Maintenance Code is not to be punitive but to secure compliance with the housing code and protect public welfare. See, Matter of Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York v Deka Realty Corp., 208 AD2d 37 [2d Dept 1995]; Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York v Joseph, 85 Misc 3d 137 [A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50501[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2025].

Given the strong preference for resolving matters on the merits, the equitable nature of an HP proceeding, and the principle that civil penalties should be determined after an opportunity to be heard, it is appropriate to vacate the judgment.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Respondent-owners' order to show cause, motion sequence no. 2, is granted and the judgment dated August 21, 2025 is vacated; and it is further,

ORDERED that the April 24, 2025 Order to Correct shall remain in full force and effect, and Respondent-owners may elect to file a late answer, excluding any personal jurisdiction defense, on or before July 16, 2026; and it is further

ORDERED that this proceeding is scheduled to appear in Part B on July 6, 2026 at 9: 30 AM for all purposes, including settlement or hearing on the civil penalties as determined by the presiding judge. The bifurcated harassment trial is scheduled to be heard on July 29, 2026.

This decision/order will be filed to NYSCEF.

This constitutes the decision/order of this Court.

Enedina Pilar Sanchez, J.