Key Takeaway
Court of Appeals rules CPLR 3215(f) violations are procedural errors, not jurisdictional defects, allowing correction via CPLR 5015 motions rather than nullifying judgments.
Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v H & A Locksmith, Inc., 2013 NY Slip Op 03867 (2013)
“On November 5, 2009, Vanunu moved to vacate the judgment, asserting that his default was excusable and that he had meritorious defenses to the action. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that Vanunu’s delay in defending himself was not excusable. The Appellate Division reversed without reaching the issue of excusable default, holding that because “plaintiff failed to provide … evidence that was personally liable for the stated claims … . the default judgment was a nullity” (Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v H & A Locksmith, Inc., 82 AD3d 674 ). The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal, certifying the question of whether its order was properly made. We answer the question in the negative, and reverse.”
…
“The defect in the default judgment before us is not jurisdictional in this sense. A failure to submit the proof required by CPLR 3215(f) should lead a court to deny an application for a default judgment, but a court that does not comply with this rule has merely committed an error — it has not usurped a power it does not have. The error can be corrected by the means provided by law — i.e., by an application for relief from the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015. It does not justify treating the judgment as a nullity.”
This will be interesting to watch play out. Does the failure to comply with CPLR 3215(f) implicate the meritorious defense branch of CPLR 5015(a)(1), provided that a reasonable excuse is established? This will insulate clerk’s judgments that do not comply 3215(f) where a reasonable excuse is not found on the subsequent 5015(a)(1) motion.
Related Articles
- Default judgment conditionally granted under CPLR 3215(f)
- Complex default judgment issues in no-fault arbitration cases
- CPLR 312-a service defects leading to complaint dismissal
- Law office failure requirements for opening default judgments
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, courts have continued to develop jurisprudence around CPLR 3215(f) compliance and the distinction between jurisdictional defects and procedural errors in default judgment practice. Practitioners should verify current appellate decisions and any procedural rule amendments that may have refined the standards for challenging default judgments based on insufficient proof submissions.
