Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate a default judgment entered against them for failing to appear or answer the complaint. The court determined that the defendants' conclusory allegations of law office failure were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default, rendering it unnecessary to evaluate whether they presented a potentially meritorious defense. The underlying dispute involved a breach of contract claim stemming from a merchant agreement for the purchase of receivables.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default under CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the default judgment.
Holdings
- The motion to vacate was denied because the defendants failed to show a reasonable excuse for their default.
Key quotations
“'[a] defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing in the action or answering the complaint must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense'”
Factual background
In May 2021 the plaintiff and the defendants entered a written merchant agreement for the purchase of $299,800 of receivables for $200,000. The defendants failed to appear or answer the complaint after being served. The trial court entered a default judgment for the plaintiff on Dec. 1, 2021. The defendants subsequently moved to vacate the judgment under CPLR 5015(a).
Procedural history
The plaintiff and defendants entered a merchant agreement; defendants failed to appear, resulting in a default judgment on Dec. 1, 2021. Defendants moved to vacate the judgment under CPLR 5015(a); the trial court denied the motion on July 7, 2022. The defendants appealed.