Homapour v. 3M Props., LLC
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 34518(U) (Homapour v. 3M Props., LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Homapour v 3M Props., LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 34518(U) December 19, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653795/2015 Judge: Joel M. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 653795/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1790 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X MEHRNAZ NANCY HOMAPOUR, BALANCE PROPERTY, INDEX NO. 653795/2015 LLC,JAM REALTY NYC LLC,UNITED CHELSEA, LLC,UNITED EAST, LLC,UNITED FIFTH, LLC,UNITED FLATIRON LLC,UNITED GREENWICH, LLC,UNITED MOTION DATE 09/27/2024 HAY, LLC,UNITED NATIONWIDE REALTY LLC,UNITED PRIME BROADWAY, LLC,UNITED PRIME LLC,UNITED MOTION SEQ. NO. 019 SEED LLC,UNITED SQUARE LLC,UNITED VILLAGE, LLC,UNITED WEST, LLC, DECISION + ORDER ON Plaintiffs, MOTION
-v- 3M PROPERTIES, LLC,BALANCE PROPERTY, LLC,JAM REALTY NYC LLC,UNITED CHELSEA, LLC,UNITED EAST, LLC,UNITED FIFTH, LLC,UNITED FLATIRON LLC,UNITED GREENWICH, LLC,UNITED HAY, LLC,UNITED NATIONWIDE REALTY LLC,UNITED PRIME BROADWAY, LLC,UNITED PRIME LLC,UNITED SEED LLC,UNITED SQUARE LLC,UNITED VILLAGE, LLC,UNITED WEST, LLC,JACOB NY HOLDINGS LLC,JACOB NY HOLDINGS LTD., 172 MULBERRY REALTY LLC,1007 LEX AVE LLC,69 CLINTON NPG LLC,163 CHRYSTIE REALTY LLC,427 EAST 77TH STREET LLC,360 EAST 50TH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC,356 EAST 50TH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC,ORANGE & BLUE LLC,ALEXANDER SELIGSON, SELIGSON ROTHMAN & ROTHMAN, GERARDINE T. DELLARATTA, AS EXECUTRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF HENRY DELLARATTA, NATALIE HAROUNIAN, MEHRNOSH PIROOZIAN, JACOB HAROUNIAN, MARK HAROUNIAN, JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. JOEL M. COHEN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 019) 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450 were read on this motion for JUDGMENT - DEFAULT .
Defendants/Crossclaim-Plaintiffs Mark Harounian (“Mark”), JAM Realty NYC LLC
(“JAM”), and United Seed LLC (“Seed,” collectively with Mark and JAM “Crossclaim-
Plaintiffs”) move for an order entering default judgment against Defendant/Crossclaim-
653795/2015 HOMAPOUR, MEHRNAZ NANCY vs. 3M PROPERTIES, LLC Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 019
1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 653795/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1790 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2024
Defendant Jacob Harounian (“Crossclaim-Defendant” or “Jacob”) on the crossclaims asserted
against Jacob in their November 16, 2023 Verified Answer and Crossclaims (NYSCEF 903). In
turn, Jacob cross-moves for an extension of time to file his Answer to the crossclaims and to
compel Crossclaim-Plaintiffs to accept that filing. Upon the foregoing documents and for the
reasons stated below, Crossclaim-Plaintiffs’ motion is denied and Crossclaim-Defendant’s cross-
motion is granted.
CPLR 3012(d) provides that “[u]pon the application of a party, the court may extend the
time to appear or plead, or compel the acceptance of a pleading untimely served, upon such
terms as may be just and upon a showing of reasonable excuse for delay or default.” The First
Department has observed, consistent with this language, that “no showing of meritorious defense
[is] required” for relief under this provision (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Donaldson, 181 AD3d
464, 465 [1st Dept 2020]; see also Naber Electric v Triton Structural Concrete, Inc., 160 AD3d
507, 508 [1st Dept 2018] (“an affidavit of merit is not essential to the relief sought by defendants
before entry of a default order or judgment”].1
1 Although there are cases suggesting that “the potential merits of any defense” may be considered as a factor in exercising discretion under CPLR 3012(d) (see Emigrant Bank v Rosabianca, 156 AD3d 468, 472-473 [1st Dept 2017]; U.S. Bank National Association v Barker Project LLC, 220 AD3d 588 [1st Dept 2023]), they are distinguishable. In Emigrant Bank, for example, the defaulting parties did not oppose the motion for default; rather, they waited more than four months after the default motion to move pursuant to CPLR 3012(d), after default judgment had already been entered against them in a related proceeding (156 AD3d at 472-73). Here, Jacob responded to the default motion and has participated in this litigation for years. US Bank National Association cites only Emigrant Bank in stating the requirement of a meritorious defense, and in that case the lack of meritorious defense was not dispositive because the court found there was also no reasonable excuse for default (220 AD3d at 588; see also U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Rivera, 187 AD3d 624, 625 [1st Dept 2020] [noting that where there is no reasonable excuse, the court need not consider the merits of the defense when vacating a default judgment]).
653795/2015 HOMAPOUR, MEHRNAZ NANCY vs. 3M PROPERTIES, LLC Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 019
2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 653795/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1790 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2024
In determining whether there is a reasonable excuse, the Court may consider all relevant
factors, including the length of the delay, prejudice to the opposing party, willfulness, and “the
strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” (Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc.,
21 AD3d 876, 876-877 [2005]). Jacob asserts that the delay was the result of inadvertent law
office failure because his counsel did not notice that Crossclaim-Plaintiffs added a demand for
Jacob to answer the crossclaims (NYSCEF 1449 [Memorandum in Opposition]; NYSCEF 1444
[“Steckler Aff.”] ¶ 9). Jacob’s counsel explains that this oversight occurred because Crossclaim-
Plaintiffs’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint was nearly identical to their prior
two Answers, which did not demand a response from Jacob (Steckler Aff. ¶¶ 4-6; NYSCEF
1445-47 [Answers]).
While the length of delay was not insubstantial (approximately 10 months), Jacob’s
default was not prejudicial. Fact discovery was completed when the third Answer was filed, and
Crossclaim-Plaintiffs did not raise the issue of Jacob’s default until serving the Notice of Motion
nearly 10 months after Jacob’s reply was due (see Steckler Aff. ¶ 9; NYSCEF 936 [Notice of
Motion]; NYSCEF 1449 [Memorandum in Opposition] at 5; NYSCEF 1450 [Memorandum in
Reply] at 3). Further, as discussed above, the cross-claims remained nearly identical to the ones
previously asserted. Nor is Jacob’s opposition to the instant motion and participation in this
nearly decade-old litigation consistent with a pattern of willful and dilatory behavior (see Tadco
Constr. Corp. v Gen. Contrs. Assn. of NY, Inc., 223 AD3d 445, 446 [1st Dept 2024] [finding
reasonable excuse where failure to answer was not willful or part of a pattern of neglect, but
rather resulted from inadvertent law office failure]).
In light of the general preference for resolving disputes on the merits, the lack of
prejudice to Crossclaim-Plaintiffs, and Jacob’s explanation for his failure to reply to the
653795/2015 HOMAPOUR, MEHRNAZ NANCY vs. 3M PROPERTIES, LLC Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 019
3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 653795/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1790 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2024
crossclaims, the Court concludes that Jacob has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for delay or
default.
Accordingly, it is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 34518(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homapour-v-3m-props-llc-nysupctnewyork-2024.