TARRANT v. MARTINEZ (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), entered August 14, 2023.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered May 9, 2019, upon his default in appearing or answering the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the judgment is denied.

In May 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries the plaintiff allegedly sustained when he tripped and fell on a sidewalk in the Village of Hempstead.  The defendant failed to appear or answer the complaint.  The plaintiff thereafter moved for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and, in an order entered July 16, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion.  A judgment was thereafter entered on May 9, 2019, upon the defendant's default, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

In May 2023, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the judgment.  In an order entered August 14, 2023, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eliacin, 206 A.D.3d 950, 951, 171 N.Y.S.3d 139;  see Biotek Servs., LLC v. South Is. Med. Assoc., P.C., 216 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 187 N.Y.S.3d 805).  Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party's default (see Columbus v. Kourtei, 218 A.D.3d 531, 531–532, 192 N.Y.S.3d 552;  Sauteanu v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 210 A.D.3d 922, 923, 179 N.Y.S.3d 131).  The claim of such failure must be supported by a credible and detailed explanation of the default (see Columbus v. Kourtei, 218 A.D.3d at 531–532, 192 N.Y.S.3d 552;  Melendez v. John P. Picone, Inc., 215 A.D.3d 665, 665–666, 187 N.Y.S.3d 82).  “ ‘[C]onclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse’ ” (Columbus v. Kourtei, 218 A.D.3d at 532, 192 N.Y.S.3d 552, quoting Kamil El–Deiry & Assoc. CPA, PLLC v. Excellent Home Care Servs., LLC, 208 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 175 N.Y.S.3d 79;  see Sutton v. Syla, 223 A.D.3d 764, 766, 203 N.Y.S.3d 677).  Additionally, “ ‘[m]ere neglect is not a reasonable excuse’ ” (Byung Ha Lee v. Mascarenas, 219 A.D.3d 928, 929, 196 N.Y.S.3d 98, quoting Melamed v. Adams & Co. Real Estate, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 867, 869, 174 N.Y.S.3d 713).

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default.  As the defendant acknowledged in an affidavit, despite having received multiple notices of this action and consulting with an attorney, he failed to appear in this action or answer the complaint.  The defendant's unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure were unsupported by a credible and detailed explanation of the default (see id.;  Columbus v. Kourtei, 218 A.D.3d at 531–532, 192 N.Y.S.3d ;  Kamil El–Deiry & Assoc. CPA, PLLC v. Excellent Home Care Servs., LLC, 208 A.D.3d at 1171, 175 N.Y.S.3d 79).

Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, it is unnecessary to determine whether he demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Columbus v. Kourtei, 218 A.D.3d at 532, 192 N.Y.S.3d 552;  Kamil El–Deiry & Assoc. CPA, PLLC v. Excellent Home Care Servs., LLC, 208 A.D.3d at 1171, 175 N.Y.S.3d 79).

In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's remaining contention need not be reached.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the judgment.

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.