Boushie v. Latt

• Decision Date: 10 March 2022
• Docket Number: 533185
• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Parties: R. Scott Boushie, Doing Business as Boushie & Assoc., Respondent, v. Judi A. Latt, Doing Business as Judi's Computer Support & Learning Ctr., Appellant.

2022 NY Slip Op 01495

R. Scott Boushie, Doing Business as Boushie & Assoc., Respondent,
v.
Judi A. Latt, Doing Business as Judi's Computer Support & Learning Ctr., Appellant.

No. 533185

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

March 10, 2022

Calendar Date:January 5, 2022

Legal Aid Society of New York, Inc., Albany (Anthony Mohen of counsel), for appellant.

Stephen L. Buzzell, Lake Clear, for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

Egan Jr., J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Bruening, J.), entered October 14, 2020 in Essex County, which denied defendant's motion to, among other things, vacate a default judgment.

In 2013, defendant engaged plaintiff to prepare a 2012 tax return and provide other tax and accounting services. Following a prolonged dispute over the quality of those services and the fees charged for them, plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action in January 2018. Defendant attempted to appear in February 2018 by filing an answer with the Essex County Clerk, but she failed to serve that answer upon plaintiff as required (see CPLR 320 [a]). In May 2018, plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendant in the amount of $12, 409.50. Defendant wrote to plaintiff and the Essex County Clerk twice in the ensuing month, objecting to the default judgment upon the ground that she had attempted to appear. She did not, however, move to vacate the default judgment.

In December 2019, defendant learned that the pending sale of her residence could not go forward until the lien arising from the default judgment was addressed. The parties thereafter negotiated an agreement - negotiations that, it appears, were conducted by counsel on defendant's behalf - under which plaintiff would release the lien and enter a satisfaction of judgment in return for a reduced payment from defendant of $7, 101. On January 10, 2020, defendant made that payment and plaintiff executed a satisfaction of judgment. Three days later, defendant filed a request for judicial intervention complaining that the judgment had been entered in error. Defendant was advised in February 2020 by court officials that she would either need to obtain plaintiff's consent to vacate the default judgment or move on notice for that relief. In July 2020, defendant finally moved to, among other things, vacate the default judgment. Plaintiff responded by filing the satisfaction of judgment and then...