On March 4, 2026, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in G-Unit Books, Inc. v. Tompkins, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50268(U), holding that a detailed explanation of why service was not effected is a sufficient excuse for failing timely to appear, explaining:
Plaintiff has submitted, together with a verified complaint, which constitutes proof constituting the claim, prima facie evidence of proper service and evidence of defendant’s default in answering the complaint. Plaintiff has satisfied the basic requirements of CPLR 3215.
To defeat plaintiff’s facially adequate motion, the defendant must establish a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious defense to the action. In response to plaintiff’s motion, defendant did not file opposition, but, rather, filed a motion for leave to extend defendant’s time to answer the verified complaint pursuant to CPLR §3012. To compel plaintiff to accept service of its untimely answer, defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in answering and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Successful opposition to a CPLR 3215 motion for leave to enter a default judgment, requires the same showing as an affirmative motion for leave to extend the time to answer.
In her motion, defendant denies receipt of service and affirms that she does not reside at any of the three addresses plaintiff purportedly relied upon to affect service upon her. According to defendant, she purportedly has not resided at any of the locations served by plaintiff for many years, and she denies any current connection with the locations. Defendant further denies providing consent or authority to anyone currently residing at the locations to accept service on her behalf, and refutes plaintiff’s claims that service was ever properly effectuated against her. Defendant allegedly became aware of this action from news outlets that contacted her for comment. She submits that, once she became aware of the action, she obtained counsel, and, finally, denies any willful delay or intent to abandon the case.
It is this court’s view that defendant has adequately established a reasonable excuse for her default. Defendant disputes receipt of service and denies residing at any of the locations purportedly served. This court rejects plaintiff’s arguments that defendant’s affirmations regarding her residency are conclusory or unsubstantiated. Defendant has every right to challenge the propriety of service, and, in support of its motion for default, plaintiff provided no proof that it obtained her current address from a reliable indicator.
Further, by her affirmation, defendant has set forth grounds for a meritorious defense to this action. Defendant refutes that the subject Life Rights Agreement was entered into voluntarily, and presents arguments, which taken in their totality, identify a counterclaim for breach of contract, and identify generally the contractual defenses of duress, illegality and/or fraud.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).