Opinion
Index No. 650925/20 16649 Case No. 2022–02898
11-15-2022
Alba MEJIA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Robert Duran DE LA ROSA et al., Defendants–Appellants, Hugo Santana et al., Defendants.
Max D. Leifer, P.C., New York (Max D. Leifer of counsel), for appellants. Garcia & Kalicharan, P.C., New York (William A. Garcia of counsel), for respondent.
Max D. Leifer, P.C., New York (Max D. Leifer of counsel), for appellants.
Garcia & Kalicharan, P.C., New York (William A. Garcia of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Kern, Gesmer, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa Crane, J.), entered March 1, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants Robert Duran De La Rosa and Jose Hernandez's motion to vacate the default judgment against them, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted as to those defendants.
Although defendants’ claimed lack of fluency in English, by itself, did not amount to a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear or interpose an answer to plaintiff's complaint, vacatur is warranted under the circumstances here, where defendants have also shown that their default was neither willful nor part of a pattern of dilatory behavior, and plaintiff has not demonstrated prejudice (see DaimlerChrysler Ins. Co. v. Seck, 82 A.D.3d 581, 582, 919 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Chelli v. Kelly Group, P.C., 63 A.D.3d 632, 633, 883 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Further, defendants raised meritorious defenses to the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The subject stock purchase agreement itself establishes that Hernandez was not a signatory to the contract and had no ownership interest in the company (see Randall's Is. Aquatic Leisure, LLC v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 463, 463–464, 938 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Although Duran De La Rosa signed the agreement, his affidavit raised factual issues as to his actual ownership interest in the company and plaintiff's performance under the contract. In light of the strong public policy to dispose of cases on their merits, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment (see Cornwall Warehousing, Inc. v. Lerner, 171 A.D.3d 540, 541, 98 N.Y.S.3d 192 [1st Dept. 2019] ).