Cesar Soares, Plaintiff, v. RP HH LP 700 EIGHTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUM PARAMOUNT GROUP FUND VIII 700 EIGHTH MORTGAGE 700 EIGHTH AVENUE LLC 700 EIGHTH OWNER RP HH MILFORD PLAZA LESSEE LP HIGHGATE HOTELS ROW NYC LLC ROW NYC II LLC (2026)

This action arises from a trip and fall on a condominium building's sidewalk. On motion sequence 002, plaintiff, Cesar Soares, moved for default judgment against defendant 700 Eighth Retail Owner LP f/k/a Paramount Group Fund VIII 700 Eighth Mortgage, L.P. (among other defendants). This court granted the motion on liability. (See NYSCEF No. 46 [handwritten order, dated Nov. 21, 2025].) Now, on motion sequence 003, defendant moves under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate that order. The motion is granted.

Vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) requires a showing of reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense. Defendant has satisfied both criteria.

1. With respect to its reasonable excuse, defendant represents that it did not timely appear in this action, because it was under the impression that its insurance company would step in on its behalf. Plaintiff argues that defendant knew about the litigation pending against it and dilatorily failed to act.¹

Defendant's property manager represents that defendant received plaintiff's summons and complaint in August 2025 (and supplemental summons and complaint in October 2025) and immediately forwarded the papers each time to its insurance carrier. (See NYSCEF No. 59 at 2.) This is generally a sufficiently reasonable excuse for CPLR 5015 (a) (1) purposes. (See Rodgers v 66 E. Tremont Hgts. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 69 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2010] [vacating default judgment when defendant had forwarded correspondence and pleadings to its insurer, because "it was reasonable for defendant to believe that its insurer would take the appropriate action to appear and defend the action"].) The manager further explains that defendant "was in contact with the insurance carrier from August until November and thought the insurance carrier was handling the issue." (NYSCEF No. 59 at 2.) And although she does not deny that defendant received notice of the default-judgment motion, only a few months had passed between plaintiff's adding defendant to the case (August 2025) and the motion for default judgment (in October 2025). (Cf. Gecaj v Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Corp., 149 AD3d 600, 603-604 [1st Dept 2017] [holding that belief that insurer would provide a defense is unreasonable once defendant received notice of a default-judgment motion and failed to determine after three years whether insurance carrier would respond to the dispute].) Finally, defendant waited only about three months after entry of the default-judgment order to bring this motion. (Cf. Hertz Vehicles LLC v Westchester Radiology & Imaging, PC, 161 AD3d 550 [1st Dept 2018] [denying vacatur in light of eight-month delay in moving to vacate].)

2. Defendant also argues that it has a meritorious defense. Defendant contends that it has title to the retail store by which plaintiff allegedly fell but that a different condominium owner (the hotel unit owner) is responsible for maintaining public sidewalks. (See NYSCEF No. 49 at 8.) Defendant argues that it is responsible for reimbursing the hotel unit owner in proportion to its percentage of common interest. (See id.) In opposition, plaintiff points to an email, which, he says, shows that the hotel unit owner and defendant may allocate among themselves the sidewalk maintenance responsibilities. (See NYSCEF No. 66 at ¶ 46.) Plaintiff contends that the way the unit owners' allocated sidewalk responsibilities does not excuse defendant from an owner's non-delegable duty under New York City Administrative Code § 7-210 to maintain sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition. (See NYSCEF No. 66 at 7.)

Defendant has raised a potentially meritorious defense. The condominium bylaws provide that the "Hotel Unit Owner shall be responsible for operating and Maintaining the public sidewalks as if they were part of the Property and the Retail Unit Owner shall be responsible for reimbursing the Hotel Unit Owner for the costs of such Maintenance in accordance with its respective percentage Common Interest." (NYSCEF No. 64 at ¶ 5.21.9.) In addition, the email to which plaintiff points merely refers to this bylaw provision, not the extent to which the unit owners allocated their sidewalk responsibilities. (See NYSCEF No. 62 [email].) And plaintiff does not suggest that defendant failed to fulfill its obligation of reimbursing the hotel unit owner for sidewalk repairs.

Defendant's motion to vacate this court's default-judgment order against it is granted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendant 700 Eighth Retail Owner LP's motion to vacate this court's November 21, 2025, default-judgment order against defendant 700 Eighth Retail Owner LP is granted, and the order is hereby vacated; and it is further

ORDERED that 700 Eighth Retail Owner LP shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before June 5, 2026; and it is further

ORDERED that 700 Eighth Retail Owner LP shall serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on plaintiff; on all parties that were served with the now-vacated judgment; on the office of the General Clerk (using the NYSCEF document type "Service on Supreme Court Clerk (Genl. Clerk) w/Copy of Order"), which shall update its records accordingly; and on the office of the County Clerk (using the NYSCEF document type "Notice to the County Clerk - CPLR § 8019 (c)"), which shall vacate the judgment entered on November 21, 2025 as against 700 Eighth Retail Owner LP, and update its records accordingly.

DATE 5/18/2026

FOOTNOTES

1.   Notably, defendant claims that it attempted to obviate the need for this motion by stipulation to vacate.

Gerald Lebovits, J.