Opinion
05-02-2024
Tao LIU, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sobin CHANG, Defendant-Appellant.
Kaufmann Gildin & Robbins LLP, New York (Daniel Gildin of counsel), for appellant. Moulinos & Associates LLC, New York (Daniel Levinas of counsel), for respondent.
Kaufmann Gildin & Robbins LLP, New York (Daniel Gildin of counsel), for appellant.
Moulinos & Associates LLC, New York (Daniel Levinas of counsel), for respondent. Webber, J.P., Oing, Rodriguez, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered August 14, 2023, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion, as her moving papers failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action (CPLR 5015[a]; see Liparulo v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 193 A.D.3d 593, 143 N.Y.S.3d 183 [1st Dept. 2021], lv dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1088, 157 N.Y.S.3d 268, 178 N.E.3d 933 [2021]; Kanat v. Ochsner, 301 A.D.2d 456, 457–458, 755 N.Y.S.2d 371 [1st Dept. 2003]). Defendant’s contention that her counsel neglected the matter does not constitute a reasonable excuse. Defendant, who appeared pro se, did not submit any documentation that she had actually retained counsel, and no notice of appearance was ever filed. In any event, bare allegations of incompetence by counsel cannot serve as the basis to set aside a default under CPLR 5015 (see Youni Gems Corp. v. Bassco Creations Inc., 70 A.D.3d 454, 455, 896 N.Y.S.2d 315 [1st Dept. 2010], lv dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 863, 909 N.Y.S.2d 693, 936 N.E.2d 460 [2010]).
We also reject defendant’s contention that her default arose from her status as a pro se litigant. Although courts may afford pro se litigants some latitude, those litigants do not acquire greater rights than any other litigants, and defendant repeatedly failed to comply with deadlines and court orders (see Stewart v. ARC Dev. LLC, 138 A.D.3d 413, 414, 27 N.Y.S.3d 862 [1st Dept. 2016]).
Because defendant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default, we need not determine whether she has offered a meritorious defense (see Pires v. Ortiz, 18 A.D.3d 263, 264, 795 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept. 2005]). In any event, defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense.
We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.