EDWIN v. LANDMARK COLONY AT OYSTER BAY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas Rademaker, J.), entered August 25, 2025.  The order granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered May 23, 2025, upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty against the managing agent of her housing complex, the homeowners association of the complex, and members of the board of directors of the homeowners association.  The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants were obligated to maintain and repair the roof, but had failed to do so, resulting in leaks and damage to her condominium unit.  A judgment was entered upon the defendants' default in appearing or answering the complaint.  The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the judgment and pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer.  The plaintiff opposed the motion.  In an order entered August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

To vacate an order or judgment on the ground of excusable default, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1];  Young Su Hwangbo v. Nastro, 153 A.D.3d 963, 965, 60 N.Y.S.3d 412).  Likewise, to extend the time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 3012[d];  Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Movtady, 165 A.D.3d 1025, 1027, 87 N.Y.S.3d 114).  Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion since the defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default (see Jong Gwon Kim v. Strippoli, 144 A.D.3d 982, 983–984, 42 N.Y.S.3d 245;  Gerdes v. Canales, 74 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 903 N.Y.S.2d 499), as well as a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants' remaining contentions.

Accordingly, we affirm the order.

DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.