On February 2, 2026, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Chen Dongwu v. New York City Regional Ctr. LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50258(U), denying a motion to vacate a default judgment for failure to show either a reasonable excuse or a meritorious defense, explaining:
An application to set aside a judgment or order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) may be made upon excusable default, if such motion is made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment or order with written notice of its entry upon the moving party.
Here, Han submits that his default was not willful because technical difficulties prohibited him from logging into the virtual conferences. He further states that the court was unreachable by telephonic means, and Han asserts that his failure to speak with any court personnel prohibited him from advising the court of his appearance pro se. Han further alleges that he has a meritorious cause of action and affirms that a reasonable ground exists for his claim.
In opposition, the defendants highlight that this court’s most recent order dismissing Han’s complaint is the second time Han’s claims were dismissed due to his failure to appear and participate in discovery. On January 1, 2021, the Hon. O. Peter Sherwood entered an order dismissing Han’s claims, along with the claims of 41 other plaintiffs. Justice Sherwood later reinstated the complaint after Han retained counsel.
Thereafter, Han admittedly did not engage in any discovery and did not coordinate with his attorney to meet his discovery obligations. Han’s second attorney withdrew his representation on March 8, 2023. Han indicated an intent, at that time, to proceed pro se, but did not register for NYSCEF, did not engage in discovery and did not appear at any discovery conferences. His failure to appear in court-mandated conferences later resulted in the second order dismissing his complaint, which is the subject of the instant motion.
According to defendants, Han has failed to offer any reasonable excuse for his failure to participate in discovery or to appear for court-mandated conferences, and should not be permitted to reinstate his claims following his intentional default of his obligations (opposition, NYSCEF doc. no. 1530).
To vacate a default for a failure to appear, a party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious claim. Law office failure, or administrative error, must be supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default. Conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are not sufficient, and mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse.
In determining whether a reasonable excuse has been shown, a court should consider all the relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, prejudice to the opposing party, whether the default was willful, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits. With respect to vacating defaults, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the discretion of the motion court.
Here, it is this court’s view that plaintiff Han has not provided a reasonable excuse for his default. His affirmation provides no process or procedure for receiving notice of his appearances or for calendaring discovery deadlines. Han provides no insight as to why his properly noticed appearances were not calendared or otherwise scheduled and does not provide any insight as to any communication breakdown with co-counsel and opposing counsel that may have led to his nonappearance. Han fails to provide any details regarding his purported inability to contact the court by phone, which is especially relevant given the special assistance that is afforded to pro se litigants by the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Han’s claim of technical difficulties, without more, is insufficient to meet his burden for an order vacating his default.
Further, Han does not address the merits of his particular claim or identify any action, taken on his behalf as pro se, to preserve his claims or engage in discovery. Han’s affidavit only states generally that he invested $500,000 into Plaintiffs $300 million East River Waterfront Development with the impression that this project was subsidized and supported by the government, but in fact, it was not. The defendant misappropriated my funds with other investors. Han does not identify any other facts or evidence to support his claim, and did not file any opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment setting forth his arguments against dismissal of his complaint. To vacate a default, the party need not prove its claims definitively but must at least set forth facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing of a meritorious claim.
Han has not set forth a reasonable excuse for his default. Given the number of plaintiffs in this action, and the voluminous discovery process undertaken to date, the court finds that defendants would be prejudiced were they compelled to re-commence discovery with respect to Han’s claims and allegations two years after the note of issue was filed, and after summary judgment motions have been fully submitted. Although there is a strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the court gives weight to its prior orders dismissing Han’s claims for his failure to appear and to engage in discovery. Han has not demonstrated a course of conduct consistent with a litigant who intends to pursue his claims. Han’s motion to vacate the default order is, therefore, denied.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).