HERTZ VEHICLES LLC v. WESTCHESTER RADIOLOGY IMAGING PC (2018)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 20, 2017, which denied defendants A.C. Medical, P.C. and Vital Chiropractic, P.C.'s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against them and to compel acceptance of their answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the motion court found that defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default but failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1];  Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116 [1986] ), we find that defendants' proffered excuse was not reasonable (see Gecaj v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Corp., 149 A.D.3d 600, 602, 51 N.Y.S.3d 74 [1st Dept. 2017] ), and therefore need not determine whether they showed a potentially meritorious defense (see M.R. v. 2526 Valentine LLC, 58 A.D.3d 530, 532, 871 N.Y.S.2d 131 [1st Dept. 2009] ).

Defendants' counsel's perfunctory and unsubstantiated explanation that, due to a computer inputting error by an unspecified person, the law firm believed that an answer had been filed, may explain defendants' failure to answer timely (see Interboro Ins. Co. v. Perez, 112 A.D.3d 483, 976 N.Y.S.2d 378 [1st Dept. 2013] ).  However, it fails to explain either their continued failure to answer or to take any other steps to appear after they received notices of default or their failure to move to vacate the default judgment until eight months after they received notices of entry of the judgment (see CEO Bus. Brokers, Inc. v. Alqabili, 105 A.D.3d 989, 963 N.Y.S.2d 711 [2d Dept. 2013];  Pichardo–Garcia v. Josephine's Spa Corp., 91 A.D.3d 413, 936 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2012] ).