Edwin v. Landmark Colony at Oyster Bay Home Owners Assn., Inc.

Opinion

Edwin v Landmark Colony at Oyster Bay Home Owners Assn., Inc.

2026 NY Slip Op 05007

August 19, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Easton M. Edwin, appellant,

v

Landmark Colony at Oyster Bay Home Owners Association, Inc., et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 19, 2026

2025-10767, (Index No. 606430/25)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Deborah A. Dowling

Janice A. Taylor

James P. McCormack, JJ.

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, P.C., New York, NY (Robert P. Stein of counsel), for appellant.

Goldberg Segalla LLP, New York, NY (Scott R. Green and Jacqueline N. Roman of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas Rademaker, J.), entered August 25, 2025. The order granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered May 23, 2025, upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty against the managing agent of her housing complex, the homeowners association of the complex, and members of the board of directors of the homeowners association. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants were obligated to maintain and repair the roof, but had failed to do so, resulting in leaks and damage to her condominium unit. A judgment was entered upon the defendants' default in appearing or answering the complaint. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the judgment and pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer. The plaintiff opposed the motion. In an order entered August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

To vacate an order or judgment on the ground of excusable default, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro, 153 AD3d 963, 965). Likewise, to extend the time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 3012[d]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Movtady, 165 AD3d 1025, 1027). Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion since the defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default (see Jong Gwon Kim v Strippoli, 144 AD3d 982, 983-984; Gerdes v Canales, 74 AD3d 1017, 1018), as well as a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants' remaining contentions.

Accordingly, we affirm the order.

DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court