Yao Ping Tang, respondent, v. LLC (2010)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Yao Ping Tang, respondent, v. Grand Estate, LLC, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.

2010-01906 2010-01929 (Index No. 19150 /08)

Decided: October 19, 2010

MARK C. DILLON, J.P. RUTH C. BALKIN CHERYL E. CHAMBERS SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Richard Paul Stone, New York, N.Y., for appellants. Michael A. Flaks, New York, N.Y., for respondent. A defendant seeking to vacate an order entered on its default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) “must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense” to the action (Zanani v Schvimmer, 75 AD3d 546, 547;  see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141;  Gray v B.R. Trucking Co., 59 N.Y.2d 649, 650;  Li Gang Ma v Hong Guang Hu, 54 AD3d 312, 313;  Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672, 672-673;  Cooney v Cambridge Mgt. & Realty Corp., 35 AD3d 522, 523).   The appellants failed to establish that, under the terms of a lease between the defendant Grand Estate, LLC, and the defendant Madison Tower Condominium, Inc. (hereinafter Madison), Madison would secure legal representation for the appellants in this action and handle the arrangements for that representation (see Pisciotta v Lifestyle Designs, Inc., 62 AD3d 850, 853;  General Elec. Tech. Servs.  Co. v Perez, 156 A.D.2d 781, 783).   In any event, the appellants' erroneous assumption that they did not need to appear in the action or answer the complaint did not constitute a valid excuse for their failure to appear in this action or their failure to answer the complaint (see Dorrer v Berry, 37 AD3d 519, 520;  Everything Yogurt v Toscano, 232 A.D.2d 604, 606;  Moore v Claudio, 224 A.D.2d 502, 503;  Awad v Severino, 122 A.D.2d 242).   In addition, the appellants failed to present a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545).