David Huang, Nicole Lee-Huang, and Jessica Huang, Respondents, v. Ernest Johnson, Appellant, John/Jane Doe 1-2, Undertenants. (2025)

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the final judgment is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In August 2023, landlords commenced this holdover proceeding alleging that tenant's month-to-month tenancy had expired in July 2023, that landlords had served a 90-day notice of nonrenewal, and that tenant owed arrears, as well as use and occupancy. Tenant failed to appear or answer. On February 1, 2024, following an inquest, the Civil Court (David J. Bryan, J.) entered a final judgment awarding landlords possession. In March 2024, a warrant of eviction was signed and tenant was evicted in April 2024. Shortly thereafter, tenant moved, in effect, to vacate the default final judgment and be restored to possession. In support of the motion, tenant stated "I was deprived without my receiving any notification. Six (6) months ago Family Court put me in jail even though I told them that I had to go to work the next day at the NYC Parks Dept. to pay my rent. I was released the day after my eviction." Landlords opposed the motion. By order dated April 25, 2024, the Civil Court (Enedina Pilar Sanchez, J.) denied the motion, without prejudice, noting that tenant had failed to provide proof that he was incarcerated.

In order to vacate the default final judgment, tenant needed to demonstrate either the lack of the Civil Court's jurisdiction (see CPLR 5015 [a] [4]) or that he had both a reasonable excuse for his default and a potentially meritorious defense to the proceeding (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Torres v DeJesus, 197 AD3d 1260 [2021]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the motion court (see Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]; Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876, 876-877 [2005]).

Here, tenant's motion papers contain only conclusory statements which provided insufficient proof of a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or a potentially meritorious defense to the proceeding. Even though tenant asserted that he was incarcerated from October 2023 to April 2024, he provided no proof of same. Moreover, tenant's assertion in his motion that he did not receive "any notification" was not specific enough to support a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. Despite these deficiencies, the Civil Court, in its discretion, denied tenant's motion without prejudice, thereby providing him with the opportunity to renew his motion and address any deficiency.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 6, 2025