In H. v. J., the Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed a holdover proceeding initiated by D.H., N.L.-H., and J.H. against E.J. and unnamed undertenants. The landlords alleged that E.J.’s month-to-month tenancy had expired in July 2023, that they had served a 90-day notice of nonrenewal, and that E.J. owed arrears and use and occupancy.
Because E.J. did not appear or respond to the petition, the Civil Court entered a default judgment on February 1, 2024, awarding possession to the landlords. A warrant of eviction was issued in March, and E.J. was evicted in April.
Following the eviction, E.J. moved to vacate the default judgment and be restored to possession. He claimed he had been incarcerated by Family Court six months earlier and was unable to attend the proceedings. He stated he had informed the court of his job at NYC Parks and was released the day after the eviction. However, he provided no documentation to support his claim.
The Queens County Civil Court denied the motion without prejudice, noting that E.J. had failed to provide proof of incarceration. To vacate the default, E.J. needed to show either lack of jurisdiction or both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. His motion failed to meet these standards. His statements were deemed conclusory and lacked specificity, and his claim of not receiving “any notification” was too vague to support a jurisdictional challenge.
On appeal, the AT2 dismissed E.J.’s appeal of the final judgment, as no appeal lies from a default judgment. The denial of his motion was affirmed, again without prejudice, allowing E.J. the opportunity to renew his motion with proper evidence.
The case highlights the procedural rigor of housing court matters and the importance of substantiating claims when seeking to overturn a default judgment. While the court left room for E.J. to try again, it made clear that mere assertions were not going to be enough.
Tenant ghosted the court. The court ghosted him back.
# # #
DECISION