Board of Mgrs. of the 610 Park Ave. Condominium v. 16EF Apt. LLC

Board of Mgrs. of the 610 Park Ave. Condominium v 16EF Apt. LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 05743) Board of Mgrs. of the 610 Park Ave. Condominium v 16EF Apt. LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 05743 Decided on October 16, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided and Entered: October 16, 2025 Before: Kern, J.P., Scarpulla, Pitt-Burke, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ. Index No. 151261/23|Appeal No. 4985|Case No. 2024-04110| [*1]Board of Managers of the 610 Park Avenue Condominium, Plaintiff-Respondent, v 16EF Apartment LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Mara Enterprises, Defendant. The Frank Law Firm P.C., Old Brookville (Thomas J. Frank of counsel), for appellant. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, New York (Michael T. Driscoll of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn III, J.), entered on or about May 14, 2024, which denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment and judgment of foreclosure and sale as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs. In this action to foreclose upon a condominium charge lien, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate, pursuant to CPLR 317, the default judgment and judgment of foreclosure and sale as against defendant 16EF Apartment LLC. This defendant contends, as its sole meritorious defense, that the notice of lien identified the property's owner as 16EF Apartment, Inc. rather 16EF Apartment LLC, in purported violation of Real Property Law § 339-aa. However, this minor defect in the lien's identification of the property owner did not invalidate the lien (see Lien Law § 23; see also Real Property Law § 339-ii) so as to furnish defendant a meritorious defense (see Figueroa v Luna , 281 AD2d 204, 205 [1st Dept 2001]). Nor does defendant assert any prejudice as a result. Regardless of whether defendant lacked actual notice of the action in time to defend, a meritorious defense is required under CPLR 317. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 16, 2025