Wong v 75 Baxter Owner, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury (premises liability) and civil procedure—entry of default judgment for failure to appear/answer.
Denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment against 75 Baxter Owner, LLC.
The portion of the corrected order denying leave to enter a default judgment against 75 Baxter Owner, LLC.
Plaintiff proved service, the facts constituting the claim, and defendant’s default as required by CPLR 3215(f); 75 Baxter did not oppose and thus failed to show a reasonable excuse or a potentially meritorious defense.
Background
Plaintiff alleged a slip-and-fall injury on premises owned by 75 Baxter Owner, LLC and operated by Bail NYC, LLC. The action was commenced in March 2023. A process server effected service on 75 Baxter under Limited Liability Company Law § 303(a) [permits service on a limited liability company by delivering process to the Secretary of State as agent for service]. 75 Baxter did not answer or appear. In December 2023, plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment against 75 Baxter and Bail NYC. 75 Baxter filed no opposition. At the March 6, 2024 motion calendar call, 75 Baxter attempted to serve an untimely answer, which plaintiff rejected. The Supreme Court (Kings County) issued a corrected order on March 6, 2024, in effect denying the branch of the motion seeking a default judgment against 75 Baxter.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, in a corrected order dated March 6, 2024, in effect denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to enter a default judgment against 75 Baxter, despite proof of service and nonappearance, after 75 Baxter attempted to interpose an untimely answer at the motion calendar.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed, with costs. The Appellate Division held that plaintiff satisfied CPLR 3215(f) [requires proof of service, facts constituting the claim, and the default to obtain a default judgment] by submitting proof of service, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of 75 Baxter’s default. Because 75 Baxter did not oppose the motion, it failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default or a potentially meritorious defense. The court granted leave to enter a default judgment against 75 Baxter.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that unopposed CPLR 3215 default motions must be granted when the movant submits required proofs; a defendant’s belated attempt to serve an answer at a motion call does not cure default absent a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. Confirms service on a limited liability company via the Secretary of State under Limited Liability Company Law § 303(a) is effective.
If a plaintiff proves proper service, the claim’s factual basis, and a defendant’s default, the court should grant a CPLR 3215 default judgment; a non-opposing defendant cannot avoid default without showing both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense.