Carol Clare, Plaintiff, v. GOULD POOLS (2026)

On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff Carol Clare commenced this action against Defendant Stephen Gould d/b/a Gould Pools alleging causes of action arising from Defendant's purportedly defective work on Plaintiff's pool and resulting property damage. The summons and complaint were served on Defendant on May 10, 2024, by methods consistent with the service requirements of CPLR § 308 (2) (see Affirmation of Service [May 13, 2024]).

Defendant did not answer or appear.

On March 3, 2026, Plaintiff moved for default judgment, requesting damages related to the alleged defective work, costs associated with diagnosing and assessing the damage, anticipated repair and remediation costs, and additional consequential damages resulting from Defendant's breach and negligence.

Under CPLR § 3215, a default judgment may be obtained where the plaintiff submits proof of "(1) valid service of the summons and the complaint, (2) the facts constituting the claim[,] and (3) the default" (Miller Greenberg Mgt. Group, LLC v Couture, 193 AD3d 1273, 1274 [3d Dept 2021], citing CPLR 3215[f]). But pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), if the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court may not enter judgment "but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed" (CPLR 3215 [c]). CPLR § 3215(c) requires "both a reasonable excuse for the delay . . . plus a demonstration that the cause of action is potentially meritorious" (Pipinias v J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., 116 AD3d 749, 751 [2d Dept 2014]).

Plaintiff filed the complaint on May 8, 2024. The motion for default judgment was not filed until March 3, 2026. Accordingly, more than one year elapsed between Defendant's default and the motion for default judgment. Plaintiff failed to proffer any excuse for her failure to take proceedings for entry of judgment after Defendant's default.

Thus, after careful consideration of the papers identified at the outset of this Decision and Order, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion for default judgment is DENIED, and the complaint dismissed.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER:

Dated: 5/29/26

Utica, New York

Hon. Elizabeth Snyder Fortino, J.S.C.

Elizabeth Snyder Fortino, J.