On September 24, 2025, Justice Patel of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Ahmed v. Ahmed, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33668(U), granting a default judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff on the defendant’s counterclaims, explaining:
On a motion for default judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3215, the moving party must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the cause of action, and proof of the defaulting party’s failure to appear and amount due. A complaint verified by someone or an affidavit executed by a party with personal knowledge of the merits of the claim satisfies this statutory requirement. CPLR 3215 does not contemplate that default judgments are to be rubber-stamped once jurisdiction and a failure to appear has been shown. The moving party must also offer some proof of liability to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of the uncontested cause of action. The standard of proof is not stringent, amounting only to some firsthand confirmation of the facts. The moving party must seek a default judgment within one year from the default in responding to the complaint.
The Court finds availing Defendants’ argument that CPLR § 3215 applies to counterclaims even though the statute does not specifically mention counterclaims. As a preliminary issue, Defendants timely served, pursuant to CPLR § 3012[a], their Amended Answer upon Plaintiff through NYSCEF within 20 days of being served with the Amended Complaint; therefore Defendants have submitted proper proof of service as to the Counterclaims. Also, Defendants adequately establish through their attorney’s affirmation and Defendants’ affirmations that Plaintiff did not timely file a reply to the Amended Answer within 20 days of being served via e-filing on NYSCEF on February 26, 2025. Defendants filed their Cross-Motion seeking a default judgment against Plaintiff on June 18, 2025, which is within one year from the default as required by CPLR § 3215[c]. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a late reply to the Counterclaims without seeking leave of the Court. As such, Plaintiff did not present a reasonable excuse for his default and subsequent delay in answering the Counterclaims. Moreover, Plaintiff does not oppose the Cross-Motion, let alone file a motion seeking for the Court to deem his reply timely served nunc pro tunc.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).