Medallion Fin. Corp. v Nelsk Taxi Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02778 [227 AD3d 546]
May 21, 2024
Appellate Division, First Department
[*1]
Medallion Financial Corp., Appellant,
v
Nelsk Taxi Inc. et al., Respondents.
Jaspan Schlesinger Narendran LLP, Garden City (Frank Dell’Amore of counsel), for appellant.
Tariq Law PC, New York (Subhan Tariq of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about July 20, 2023, which granted defendants Marc Resilard and Jacqueline Resilard’s CPLR 5015 (a) (1) motion to vacate a judgment entered against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
A judgment against defendants was entered after their prior attorney failed to oppose plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint or appear on the return date of several motions. Defendants’ motion to vacate, made more than three years after the judgment was entered and after their attorney was served with notice of entry, was “unreasonably untimely” ( Casanas v Casanas , 215 AD3d 443 , 444 [1st Dept 2023]; see Pina v Jobar U.S.A. LLC , 104 AD3d 544 , 545 [1st Dept 2013]). Defendants also did not provide a valid excuse for their failure to move within the prescribed time limitation (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see Carter v Daimler Trust , 177 AD3d 541 , 541 [1st Dept 2019]). Instead, they argue only that their prior attorney did not apprise them of a meritorious defense and did not provide them with a copy of the judgment. Further, the record shows that they waited more than a year and a half after receiving a bill from plaintiff seeking to recover on the judgment—in response to which they filed for bankruptcy—and over a year after learning of a claim against plaintiff for fraud concerning the value of its business, before seeking to vacate the judgment, without explanation for either delay.
Because defendants failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their delay, we need not address whether they demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense ( see Yang v Knights Genesis Group , 223 AD3d 639 , 640 [1st Dept 2024]; 3331 102 St. LLC v Newport Beach Holdings LLC , 205 AD3d 497 , 497 [1st Dept 2022]).
We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Kern, J.P., Oing, Kapnick, Higgitt, Michael, JJ..