Opinion
10623 Index 654559/17
12-19-2019
In re WIMBLEDON FINANCING MASTER FUND, LTD., Petitioner–Respondent, v. SAGE GROUP CONSULTING INC., et al., Respondents–Appellants, Aaron A. Grunfeld, et al., Respondents.
Parlatore Law Group, LLC, New York (Scott D. Brenner of counsel), for appellants. Kaplan Rice LLP, New York (John P. Collins, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.
Parlatore Law Group, LLC, New York (Scott D. Brenner of counsel), for appellants.
Kaplan Rice LLP, New York (John P. Collins, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Webber, Gesmer, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered October 15, 2018, which denied Sage Group Consulting Inc. and Parmjit "Paul" Parmar's (respondents) motion to vacate the default judgment against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
To vacate a default judgment under CPLR 5015(a), a defendant "must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint and a meritorious defense to the action" ( Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116 [1986] ).
Respondents failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default in answering the petition ( Lockard v. Sopolsky, 82 A.D.3d 657, 920 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 2011] ). The incarceration of Parmar, who was represented by counsel at the time, did not provide a reasonable excuse for his default, and certainly not for that of Sage Group Consulting Inc. ( Matter of Kathy C. v. Alonzo E., 157 A.D.3d 503, 69 N.Y.S.3d 19 [1st Dept. 2018] ).
Respondents also have not established a meritorious defense. In particular, they have not demonstrated fair consideration or good faith in connection with the subject conveyance ( Sardis v. Frankel, 113 A.D.3d 135, 141, 978 N.Y.S.2d 135 [1st Dept. 2014] ; see Reed Smith LLP v. LEED HR, LLC, 156 A.D.3d 420, 67 N.Y.S.3d 9 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Moreover, this Court has previously acknowledged the evidence of fraud involved in the underlying transactions and related transfers ( Matter of Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v. Wimbledon Fund, SPC, 162 A.D.3d 433, 80 N.Y.S.3d 3 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v. Bergstein, 166 A.D.3d 496, 90 N.Y.S.3d 12 [1st Dept. 2018] ).