Full text
Lee Anav Chung White Kim Ruger & Richter LLP v. Britton
Lee Anav Chung White Kim Ruger & Richter LLP v Britton 2026 NY Slip Op 30951(U) March 6, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 659377/2024 Judge: Leslie A. Stroth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6593772024.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX049_TO.html[03/20/2026 3:46:03 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2026 11:58 AM INDEX NO. 659377/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. LESLIE A. STROTH PART 12M Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 659377/2024 LEE ANAV CHUNG WHITE KIM RUGER & RICHTER LLP, MOTION DATE 07/16/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 -v- AGATHA BRITTON, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant.
-------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37 were read on this motion to/for VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD.
Plaintiff Lee Anav Chung White Kim Ruger & Richter LLP commenced this action on
December 2, 2024 to recover unpaid legal fees from a former client, Defendant Agatha Britton.
Defendant was served on December 27, 2024 and did not appear, which eventually resulted in a
default judgment against her on May 1, 2025. On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff was granted a money
judgment in the amount of $37,931.75 based on the default. On July 2, 2025, Plaintiff also
served restraining notices on Defendant's bank accounts at JPMorgan Chase Bank and Citizens
Bank, freezing a total of approximately $2,600. Each bank confirmed to Plaintiff that
Defendant's money was "being held" on July 15, 2025 and July 22, 2025, respectively.
On July 16, 2025, this unrepresented, 83-year-old Defendant moved to vacate the default
judgment by way of an Order to Show Cause. For the reasons outlined below, the Court grants
Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment in full, and orders that the restrictions on
Defendant's bank accounts be lifted.
In order to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR § 5015(a)( 1), a motion must be
made within one year of service of a copy of the judgment with notice of entry, and the movant 659377/2024 LEE ANAV CHUNG WHITE KIM RUGER & RICHTER LLP vs. BRITTON, AGATHA Page 1 of4 Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 4
/----------------------------------. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2026 11:58 AM INDEX NO. 659377/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
has the burden of demonstrating both: (1) a reasonable excuse for the default and (2) a
meritorious defense to the action (see Navarro v A. Trenkman Estate, Inc., 279 AD2d 257, 258
[1st Dept 2001]; Cedeno v Wimbledon Building Corp., 207 AD2d 297,297 [1st Dept 1994]).
Here, Defendant's motion is timely, as it was served within one year of the date that the
default order was entered. Moreover, the Court finds a reasonable excuse for the default in
Defendant's assertion that she is 83 years old, "largely immobile and ... physically incapable of
traveling to court in Manhattan while she resides in Brooklyn" (Defendant's Affirmation in
Support, NYSCEF Doc. No. 25).
Turning to the merits of her motion, Defendant argues that ( 1) Plaintiff acted with a "lack
of transparency and due process" by failing to inform Defendant that the retainer had been
exhausted and continued to bill her without proper notice or explanation; (2) that Plaintiff failed
to obtain Defendant's desired outcome through Plaintiffs legal representation; (3) that Plaintiff
created false expectations and emotional distress for Defendant; (4) that Plaintiff mismanaged
Defendant's paid retainer, and continued to bill Defendant "without notice or a clear
accounting;" and (5) that the judgment and bank account restraints have created financial
hardship and an unjust burden on Defendant, an 83-year-old retiree living on a fixed income (id.)
In response, Plaintiff states that detailed monthly bill statements justify the judgment of
$52,931.75 (to include a $15,000 retainer and $37,931.75 in additional charges and monthly
interest at 1%). Plaintiff states that there was no guarantee of a desired outcome, and that
Defendant's financial situation is no reason to vacate the judgment. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues
that to the extent that any of the invoices sent to Defendant were unclear, the issues should have
been raised following receipt of the invoice (Defendant's Opposition, NYSCEF Doc. No. 31 ).
659377/2024 LEE ANAV CHUNG WHITE KIM RUGER & RICHTER LLP vs. BRITTON, AGATHA Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2026 11:58 AM INDEX NO. 659377/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026 -•
The Court finds merit in Defendant's assertion that there is a lack of transparency in
Plaintiff's billing practices, and that Plaintiff's billing practices were unclear. The Court notes,
for example, that on various invoices, the amount of interest does not appear to comport with the
contracted interest rate of 1% (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, NYSCEF Doc. No. 32). Plaintiff's issued
invoices contain unclear calculations that create confusion, and do not contain any explanation of
how interest was calculated. Plaintiffs invoices indicate a lack of clarity, especially given that
Defendant is unrepresented.
Defendant also indicated that Plaintiff created false expectations and emotional distress
for Defendant by misrepresenting that the prior case would be in front of a "friendly" Judge.
Defendant attaches an email from Plaintiff that states, "[The Order to Show Cause is] going to
Judge Prus for his signature and he will assign a court date" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 27). Plaintiff
also submits an invoice to Defendant, billing Defendant for a "call with Judge Prus' part and got
o Judge Adams part" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 32 [typo retained]). Furthermore, Defendant states that
she "move[d] forward" with Plaintiff's legal services based on Plaintiff's representation that the
matter would be in front of Judge Prus (NYSCEF Doc. No. 25). Given that the case was
ultimately not before Judge Prus, Defendant alleges that she was misled, or at the very least, was
not fully informed. Plaintiff does not address these representations in its Opposition, but the
Court fmds them to be without merit, as the attorneys have no control over the selection of a trial
judge.
For the purposes of this motion by an unrepresented litigant, Defendant raises sufficient
allegations of unclear calculations of the amount owed, and unclear communication by her
attorneys. This is sufficient to show a meritorious defense as required by CPLR § 5015(a)(l) (see
also Navarro, 279 AD2d 258; Cedeno, 207 AD2d at 297).
659377/2024 LEE ANAV CHUNG WHITE KIM RUGER & RICHTER LLP vs. BRITTON, AGATHA Page3 of4 Motion No. 002
[* 3] 3 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/11/2026 11:58 AM INDEX NO. 659377/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
Most significantly, the First Department has emphasized that there is a strong public
policy that favors deciding cases on the merits (Thomas Anthony Holdings LLC v. Goodbody,
210 AD3d 547 [1st Dept. 2022]; Picinic v. Seatrain Lines, 117 AD2d 504,508 [1st Dept. 1986]).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment is
granted.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment entered against her
in the amount of $37,931.75 is granted.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
3/6/2026 DATE TH CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED J.e.o. GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ O;HER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER · •;a,,u~t.1fo"R'n!ft'" -- ·-· • .-, · , .. · · ··-~ -- -· CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
659377/2024 LEE ANAV CHUNG WHITE KIM RUGER & RICHTER LLP vs. BRITTON, AGATHA Page 4 of4 Motion No. 002
[* 4] 4 of 4