Leader v. Parkside Grp.

• Decision Date: 09 July 2019
• Docket Number: Index 153854/16,9803–9804
• Citation: 174 A.D.3d 420,103 N.Y.S.3d 427
• Parties: Howard LEADER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARKSIDE GROUP, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

174 A.D.3d 420

103 N.Y.S.3d 427

Howard LEADER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.PARKSIDE GROUP, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

9803–9804

Index 153854/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: JULY 9, 2019

Santamarina & Associates, New York (Kacy Popyer of counsel), for appellants.

Law Office of Steven S. Sieratzki, New York (Steven S. Sieratzki of counsel), for respondents.

Renwick, J.P., Kapnick, Singh, Moulton, JJ.

A party seeking to vacate a judgment based on excusable default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense ( CPLR 5015[a][1] ; see Benson Park Assoc., LLC v. Herman, 73 A.D.3d 464, 465, 899 N.Y.S.2d 614 [1st Dept. 2010] ).

The preference for deciding cases on the merits does not justify vacating a default judgment where the moving party fails to satisfy the two-prong test of showing a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Eisenstein v. Rose, 135 A.D.2d 369, 370, 521 N.Y.S.2d 670 [1st Dept. 1987] ).

Defendants failed to establish a meritorious defense in that collateral estoppel barred them from re-litigating the Housing Court's determination of the legal rent, as the Appellate Term properly concluded. Defendants had their day in court and failed to present evidence concerning individual apartment improvements and plaintiffs' alleged arrears. In...