Immigration Servs. for New Ams. v Monchas
2015 NY Slip Op 05158 [129 AD3d 913]
June 17, 2015
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 5, 2015


[*1]
 Immigration Services for New Americans, DoingBusiness as Easy Leasing, Respondent,
v
Ilya Monchas et al.,Appellants.

Powell & Roman, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Robert G. Androsiglio of counsel),for appellants.

Law Offices of David O'Connor, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated March 12, 2014, whichdenied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate a judgment of the samecourt dated June 18, 2013, entered upon their failure to appear or answer, and for leave toserve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate the judgment entered upon their default in appearing in this action, thedefendants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default and apotentially meritorious defense to the action (see Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. v Gritsipis, 87 AD3d216, 221 [2011]; Cuzzo vCuzzo, 65 AD3d 1274 [2009]; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672,672-673 [2008]). The bare and unsupported allegations of the defendant Ilya Monchas,who was also the president of the defendant Brooklyn Style Leasing, Inc., that he reliedon the erroneous legal advice of an unidentified person in deciding not to do anything inresponse to the summons with notice, were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonableexcuse for the default in appearing in this action and for the subsequent21/2-month delay in moving to vacate the default judgment (see Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. vRaven Brands, Inc., 82 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2011]; Yao Ping Tang v Grand Estate,LLC, 77 AD3d 822, 823 [2010]; Awad v Severino, 122 AD2d 242[1986]; Passalacqua v Banat, 103 AD2d 769 [1984]). As the defendants failed todemonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default, we need not address whether theyestablished the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Dorrer v Berry, 37 AD3d519, 520 [2007]; Hegarty vBallee, 18 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]).

The defendants' remaining contentions that the plaintiff failed to comply with therequirements of CPLR 3215 (f) and (g) (3) are not properly before this Court (see Wilson v Galicia Contr. &Restoration Corp., 10 NY3d 827, 829-830 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal,Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.