- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- G Builders IX, LLC v. Eden Ballroom, LLC
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03387
Background
Plaintiff G Builders IX, LLC, brought this action against Eden Ballroom, LLC, and defendant Carlo Seneca, among others. The case proceeded through litigation with Seneca represented by counsel. Seneca signed two court filings in 2018 and 2019 during the course of the proceedings. However, Seneca subsequently failed to appear or participate further, and an inquest was conducted without his participation. After the court entered an order after inquest in May 2024, Seneca moved to vacate the order as it applied to him. Seneca claimed that he had no notice of the orders in the case until the May 2024 order and that he had relied on his codefendants to handle the defense of the matter. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied his motion to vacate, and Seneca appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, finding that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in determining that Seneca failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default. The Court emphasized several facts undermining Seneca’s position: he was represented by counsel throughout the litigation, he personally signed two court filings in 2018 and 2019 demonstrating his awareness of the proceedings, and the plaintiff properly served all relevant papers—including notice of the two inquest dates—on defense counsel rather than personally on Seneca, as required by CPLR 2103(b). Seneca’s explanation that he was not in communication with his attorney and relied on his codefendants to handle the defense was found to be an insufficient excuse. The Court cited Higgs v. Williams, 178 AD3d 530 (1st Dept 2019), for the proposition that a party’s failure to maintain contact with his attorney and keep himself apprised of the litigation’s progress is not a reasonable excuse, and that such deliberate disengagement does not constitute the kind of law office failure that warrants vacatur of a default.
Takeaways
A defendant who is represented by counsel has an affirmative obligation to stay informed about the status of the litigation and to maintain communication with his attorney. Choosing to disengage from the case and relying on codefendants to handle the defense does not constitute a reasonable excuse for a default. Service of papers on a party’s attorney of record under CPLR 2103(b) is legally sufficient, and a party cannot claim lack of personal notice when papers were properly served on his counsel. Because Seneca failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, the Court did not need to reach the question of whether he had a meritorious defense.
Why It Matters
This decision sends a clear message to defendants in multi-party litigation: representation by counsel does not absolve a party of the responsibility to stay engaged in the case. A defendant cannot simply sign initial filings, then walk away from the litigation assuming that codefendants or counsel will handle everything, and later seek to vacate an adverse order by claiming lack of notice. The requirement to maintain contact with one’s attorney is not merely a best practice but a legal obligation, the breach of which will be held against the defaulting party. Practitioners representing multiple defendants should ensure that each client understands their individual obligations in the litigation and that failure to remain engaged may result in irrevocable consequences.