In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York upheld a default judgment against Steven Nemiroff, a defendant in a breach of contract case. The court's decision, made on August 12, 2026, affects how defendants can challenge judgments when they claim improper service. This ruling clarifies the standards for proving service of process and the requirements for vacating a default judgment.
The case, Gaitanidis v. Perri Logan Equity, Inc., was initiated by plaintiffs Makis Gaitanidis and others against Nemiroff and his company, Perri Logan Equity, Inc. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in July 2021, alleging breach of contract. The dispute arose after Nemiroff failed to respond to the complaint, leading the plaintiffs to seek a default judgment against him. The court's ruling is significant because it addresses the responsibilities of defendants in responding to legal actions and the consequences of failing to do so.
The plaintiffs served Nemiroff according to New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) section 308(2), which outlines how to serve a summons to a natural person. After Nemiroff did not appear or answer the complaint, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a default judgment on April 12, 2022. A clerk's judgment was subsequently entered on April 19, 2022, in favor of the plaintiffs. Nemiroff later sought to vacate this judgment, claiming he had not been properly served.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Nemiroff's motion to vacate the default judgment. The judges on the panel included Francesca E. Connolly, William G. Ford, Helen Voutsinas, and Laurence L. Love. The court noted, "Ordinarily, a process server's affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service." This means that when a process server submits an affidavit confirming service, it is generally accepted as valid unless proven otherwise.
The court explained that to successfully challenge a default judgment based on improper service, a defendant must provide specific facts that contradict the process server's affidavit. In this case, Nemiroff's claims of not receiving service were deemed insufficient because he did not present specific facts to counter the affidavit. The court stated, "Bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service." As a result, no hearing was required to address his claims.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Nemiroff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default. He argued that he was unaware of the legal process and did not understand the need to respond to the complaint. However, the court ruled that ignorance of the law does not constitute a valid excuse for failing to respond. The judges noted that his purported medical issues arose only after he had already defaulted.
The impact of this ruling is significant for future cases involving default judgments and service of process. It reinforces the importance of timely responses to legal actions and clarifies that defendants must provide compelling evidence when disputing service claims. This ruling may influence how courts handle similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the standards for proving service and the acceptable excuses for failing to respond to a complaint.
Going forward, this decision may deter defendants from attempting to vacate default judgments without sufficient evidence. It emphasizes that defendants must take legal notifications seriously and respond promptly to avoid adverse judgments. The ruling also serves as a reminder of the legal obligations surrounding service of process and the consequences of failing to comply.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if Nemiroff plans to appeal this decision. The court's ruling is final unless a higher court chooses to review it. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling, but it may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.