The Board of Managers of the Kay-Ell Gardens Condominium, Plaintiff, v. KATHERINE LONG THE CITY OF NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT JOHN AND JANE DOES 10 (2026)

Plaintiff the Board of Managers of the Kay-Ell Gardens Condominium commenced this action to foreclose on a common charge lien against, as relevant here, defendants Steven and Katherine Long (the Longs). Before the Court are two motions: plaintiff's motion for default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 against the Longs, and the Longs' cross-motion to compel acceptance of their late answer and amended answer.¹ For the reasons below, plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied and the Longs' motion to compel acceptance of their late answers is granted.

The procedural history is especially relevant. Plaintiff brought this action on September 6, 2024, alleging the Longs failed to pay common charges on their condo unit. NYSCEF No. 1. Plaintiff served the Longs on September 28, 2024, and the Longs answered on November 26, 2024. NYSCEF Nos. 12-13, 20, 60-61. Several months later in March of 2025, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which the Longs opposed and cross-moved to amend their answer. NYSCEF Nos. 21, 34. This Court (Hon. Neckles, J.S.C.) denied plaintiff's motion and granted the cross-motion, finding that the Longs "established triable issues of fact regarding the calculation of common charges." NYSCEF No. 42.

In April 2026, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add three additional causes of action that are not relevant here. NYSCEF No. 43. This Court (Hon. Neckles, J.S.C.) granted the motion with no opposition, giving the Longs 10 days from the "filing of notice of entry" to answer the amended complaint. NYSCEF No. 53. Notice of entry was filed August 3, 2026, giving the Longs until August 13 to answer. NYSCEF Nos 54, 62. On August 13, 2026, the parties emailed the Court a stipulation extending the Longs' deadline to answer to August 20, 2026. NYSCEF Nos. 64, 65. However, the Longs failed to answer due to their counsel's health issues. NYSCEF No. 65 at pdf pgs. 1, 2. "As a courtesy," plaintiff extended the answer deadline to August 31, 2026, but warned that it would file for default judgment on September 1 if no answer was filed. Id. at pdf pg. 1.

As a brief but necessary aside, there is another related action between these same parties before this Court that was also filed on September 6, 2024. That case also has virtually the same caption as this one: The Board of Managers of the Kay-Ell Gardens Condominium v Stephen Long et al. To make things more confusing, the index number for that action differs by only a single digit: this case is index number 524111/2024, and the related action is 524117/2024. See The Board of Managers of the Kay-Ell Gardens Condominium v Stephen Long et al., Index No. 524117/2024.

The Longs did file their answer on August 31, 2026, but mistakenly filed it in the related action, not this action. See NYSCEF No. 78 (answer in 524117/2024). Given that plaintiff has the same counsel in both actions and therefore received NYSCEF notifications for each (as counsel confirmed at oral argument), plaintiff and counsel could have alerted their adversary to the mistake. Instead, on September 1, 2026, plaintiff filed the promised motion for default judgment. NYSCEF No. 55. The same day, the Longs refiled their answer in the correct action, which plaintiff immediately rejected. NYSCEF Nos. 68-69. Twenty days later, the Longs filed an amended answer, which plaintiff again immediately rejected. NYSCEF Nos. 70, 73. Several days later, on September 24, 2026, the Longs filed their cross-motion to compel acceptance of the answers, filing proof of the mistake in filing to the parties' related action. NYSCEF Nos. 74-87.

"To defeat a facially sufficient CPLR 3215 motion, a defendant must show either that there was no default, or that [they] had a reasonable excuse for [their] delay and a potentially meritorious defense." S & J Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Com. Com. Group, Inc., 208 AD3d 908, 909 (2d Dep't 2022). "The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court." U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Essaghof, 178 AD3d 876, 877 (2d Dep't 2019). "Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party's default if the claim of such failure is supported by a credible' and detailed explanation of the default." Columbus v. Kourtei, 218 AD3d 531, 531—32 (2d Dep't 2023); see Zlobec v. Bank of New York Mellon, 241 AD3d 606, 609 (2d Dep't 2025) (same). "However, 'mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse." Tulloch v. Barka, 249 AD3d 1213, 1214 (2d Dep't 2026) (cleaned up).

Here, the Longs have easily met their burden to defeat default judgment. First, the Longs have a reasonable excuse for default: their counsel mistakenly filed their answer to the related action whose caption is virtually identical to this case and whose index number differs by just one digit. The docket in the related action confirms the Longs filed their answer there by the deadline (albeit mistakenly). See The Board of Managers of the Kay-Ell Gardens Condominium v Stephen Long et al., Index No. 524117/2024, Dkt. No. 52. This is clearly a reasonable excuse.

Second, the Longs also have a meritorious defense. This Court (Hon. Neckles, J.S.C.) already denied plaintiff's previous summary judgment motion based on "triable issues of fact regarding the calculation of common charges," NYSCEF No. 42, which allegations in the amended complaint cannot resolve. See NYSCEF No. 47 (redline of amended complaint). Given that triable issues of fact exist, the Longs have a meritorious defense.

As a final point, this Court expects counsel to extend each other professional courtesy in all proceedings in this action. Plaintiff's counsel acted appropriately in extending the Longs' deadline to file their answer. However, plaintiff's counsel is also counsel of record in the related action and admittedly received a NYSCEF notification when the Longs filed their answer on the due date but in the wrong action. When plaintiff's counsel thus became aware of the mistake, counsel should have alerted defense counsel as a matter of professional courtesy. At minimum, plaintiff should have withdrawn this motion seeking a default judgment when it became clear that an inadvertent mistake had occurred. Instead, the Court has wasted time and resources addressing a motion premised on what is an obvious and unintentional error. Given the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, see Nowakowski v. Broadway States, 179 AD3d 824, 825 (2d Dep't 2020), and the Court's prior ruling that issues of fact preclude entry of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor, there is no excuse for counsel's failure to withdraw plaintiff's motion for default judgment to avoid wasting the Court's valuable time and resources, nor for burdening the Longs with opposing what is essentially a frivolous motion. Plaintiff's counsel should consider this a warning that future conduct along these lines may result in sanctions.

It is therefore,

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendants Steven Long and Katherine Long (MS004) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the motion by defendants Steven Long and Katherine Long to compel plaintiff to accept their late answer and amended answer (MS005) is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that defendants Steven Long and Katherine Long may refile and reserve their amended answer within 20 days of service of this order with notice of entry.

E N T E R:

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

October 1, 2026

Hon. Andrew S. Amer

A.J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court has reviewed the following papers in connection with determining this application: NYSCEF Nos. 55-67, 71-72, 82-87 (MS004), 68-70, 74-81 (MS005).

Andrew S. Amer, J.