Summary
This Appellate Division decision affirms the lower court's denial of the defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment entered against her for failing to appear or answer in a partition and sale of real property action. The court held that the defendant's informal appearance occurred outside the time limits for a formal appearance, placing her in default. Furthermore, she failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense as required under CPLR 5015(a)(1) by not submitting necessary documentation regarding a mortgage refinance. Consequently, the order was affirmed with costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment under CPLR 5015(a).
Holdings
- The trial court properly denied the motion because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and did not present a potentially meritorious defense.
Key quotations
“"Although an informal appearance can prevent a finding that the defendant is in default, thereby precluding entry of a default judgment, this is only true when the participation constituting the informal appearance occurred within the time limitations imposed for making a formal appearance."” (at 1)
Factual background
Sharon Adams and Tanai Bonaparte purchased the subject property as joint tenants. Bonaparte failed to appear or answer the complaint, leading Adams to seek and obtain a default judgment. Bonaparte later attempted to vacate the default judgment under CPLR 5015(a) but did not provide a written commitment letter for a mortgage refinance as required.
Procedural history
The plaintiff commenced a partition action in December 2022. The defendant failed to appear, and the trial court entered a default judgment on March 23, 2023. The defendant later moved to vacate that order under CPLR 5015(a), but the trial court denied the motion on September 11, 2023, after the defendant failed to submit required documents. The defendant appealed.