By: Shulman, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.18-225. MARY BARON, plf-app, v. TANIA VALENTIN, def-res — Judgment (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered on or about March 23, 2017, reversed, without costs, and new trial ordered.The trial court failed to comply with the specificity requirements of CPLR 4213(b) in rendering judgment in defendant’s favor without setting forth its rationale or the facts essential to its determination. Inasmuch as this small claims action hinges in large measure upon issues of credibility raised by the parties’ conflicting testimony, a remand for a new trial is the appropriate remedy (see Weckstein v. Breitbart, 111 AD2d 6, 8 [1985]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.November 26, 2018
18-080. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., plf-app, v. RALPH CASTELLI, def-res — Order (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on October 4, 2017, reversed, without costs, motion denied and default judgment reinstated.No legal basis was shown by defendant or identified by the motion court for vacating the February 2008 default judgment. Despite a 2013 restraint on defendant’s Citibank account and a February 2013 written agreement whereby defendant “acknowledge[d] the debt” and authorized “release of…funds [in the Citibank account] towards the satisfaction of the…debt,” defendant took no action to challenge the default judgment until March 2017, a four-year delay which “evidenced a willingness to accede to the terms of the judgment” (Cooper v. Carlson, 130 AD2d 703 [1987]). In any event, defendant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his substantial delay in moving to vacate the judgment (see Caba v. Rai, 63 AD3d 578, 581-582 [2009]) and his conclusory claim that he does not owe “any money” was insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the underlying credit card debt (see Facsimile Communications Indus., Inc. v. NYU Hosp. Ctr., 28 AD3d 391, 392 [2006]).To the extent that defendant now raises a challenge to the court’s personal jurisdiction over him, his conclusory denial that he was served in 2007 was insufficient to rebut the affidavit of service (see Matter of de Sanchez, 57 AD3d 452, 454 [2008]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.November 26, 2018
