Ups Capital Corp. v. Wirelessjack.Com, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 July 2019
• Docket Number: 510,CA 18–01693
• Citation: 106 N.Y.S.3d 493,174 A.D.3d 1471
• Parties: UPS CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. WIRELESSJACK.COM, INC., a New York Corporation, Kayla Hazan, Jach Hazan, also known as Jack Hazan and Isaac Mosseri, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

174 A.D.3d 1471
106 N.Y.S.3d 493

UPS CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
WIRELESSJACK.COM, INC., a New York Corporation, Kayla Hazan, Jach Hazan, also known as Jack Hazan and Isaac Mosseri, Defendants–Appellants.

510
CA 18–01693

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

Entered: July 31, 2019

FRANK A. ALOI, ROCHESTER, AND OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP, NEW YORK CITY, FOR DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS.

WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY P. LYSTER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

174 A.D.3d 1471

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: The instant appeal arises from a cargo and finance agreement between plaintiff and defendant Wirelessjack.com, Inc. (Wirelessjack). As alleged in the complaint, the agreement provided that plaintiff would advance certain funds

174 A.D.3d 1472

to Wirelessjack, which would later be repayed by Wirelessjack. Plaintiff alleged that Wirelessjack defaulted under the agreement, leaving a balance of $277,261.60 immediately due. Plaintiff then sought to recover the outstanding balance by commencing this action against Wirelessjack, as well as defendants Kayla Hazan, Jach Hazan, also known as Jack Hazan, and Isaac Mosseri (individual defendants), who plaintiff alleged had executed personal guarantees of Wirelessjack's obligations under the agreement. All defendants failed to appear and a default judgment was entered against them. Defendants now appeal from an order that

106 N.Y.S.3d 494

denied their motion to vacate the default judgment. We affirm.

We reject defendants' contention that they established entitlement to vacatur of the default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), which required defendants to proffer "a reasonable excuse for the default and ... a meritorious defense" to the action ( Golf Glen Plaza Niles, Il. L.P. v. Amcoid USA, LLC, 160 A.D.3d 1375, 1376, 76 N.Y.S.3d 307 [4th Dept. 2018] ; see Calaci v. Allied Interstate, Inc., [Appeal No. 2], 108 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 969 N.Y.S.2d 348 [4th Dept. 2013] ). Here, defendants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for default. Defendants offer no excuse for Wirelessjack's...