Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MEDALLION FINANCIAL CORP., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NELSK TAXI INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about July 20, 2023, which granted defendants Marc Resilard and Jacqueline Resilard's CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion to vacate a judgment entered against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
A judgment against defendants was entered after their prior attorney failed to oppose plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint or appear on the return date of several motions. Defendants’ motion to vacate, made more than three years after the judgment was entered and after their attorney was served with notice of entry, was “unreasonably untimely” (Casanas v. Casanas, 215 A.D.3d 443, 444, 187 N.Y.S.3d 207 [1st Dept. 2023]; see Pina v. Jobar U.S.A. LLC, 104 A.D.3d 544, 545, 961 N.Y.S.2d 150 [1st Dept. 2013]). Defendants also did not provide a valid excuse for their failure to move within the prescribed time limitation (CPLR 5015[a][1]; see Carter v. Daimler Trust, 177 A.D.3d 541, 541, 110 N.Y.S.3d 841 [1st Dept. 2019]). Instead, they argue only that their prior attorney did not apprise them of a meritorious defense and did not provide them with a copy of the judgment. Further, the record shows that they waited more than a year and a half after receiving a bill from plaintiff seeking to recover on the judgment — in response to which they filed for bankruptcy — and over a year after learning of a claim against plaintiff for fraud concerning the value of its business, before seeking to vacate the judgment, without explanation for either delay.
Because defendants failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their delay, we need not address whether they demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense (see Yang v. Knights Genesis Group, 223 A.D.3d 639, 640, 204 N.Y.S.3d 71 [1st Dept. 2024]; 3331 102 St. LLC v. Newport Beach Holdings LLC, 205 A.D.3d 497, 497, 165 N.Y.S.3d 857 [1st Dept. 2022]).
We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2349
Decided: May 21, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)