Upon review of the foregoing papers, defendant's order to show cause to vacate the default judgment and restore the case to the calendar is decided as follows:

In this small claims action for property damage and breach of lease defendant moves to vacate a July 17, 2014 default judgment entered after inquest for $2,000.00. In support of her motion defendant contends that she lives in California and is in the process of opening a new business. Defendant also contends she does not owe any money because the claimant did not have a lease to stay in defendant's apartment. Claimant did not appear on the return date of this motion, but submitted a letter opposing the motion. In her letter claimant indicates that defendant failed to appear on any of the three prior court dates and that claimant now also lives in California and was, therefore, unable to appear in person. Claimant indicates that on the first two court dates defendant sent an employee to request an adjournment and that on the July 17, 2014 date, no one appeared for the defendant at all. Claimant also requests that in the event the court grants defendant's motion that defendant be required to pay claimant's airfare and other associated costs for her to return for trial.

A review of the court file indicates that on the first court date, February 20, 2014, the case

"A defendant seeking to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action" (J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp. v Hayles,113 AD3d 821 [2d Dept 2014]). While there is generally a strong preference [*2]for cases be decided on their merits, in determining whether a default is excusable the court should also "consider relevant factors such as the extent of the delay, prejudice or lack of prejudice to the opposing party [and] whether there has been willfulness" (Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864 [2d Dept 2005]). Under the circumstances, defendant fails to establish a reasonable excuse for her default. On the return date of the motion defendant acknowledged that she had sent someone in her place to request an adjournment on the first two court dates. She claimed she was unaware of the July 17, 2014 court date because the individual she sent failed to tell her about the next date. However, defendant freely acknowledged that she did not inquire about the new date either from the court or from the person she sent in her place after requesting the adjournment.

Defendant's contention that the individual she sent to request the adjournments failed to convey the court date to her does not constitute a reasonable excuse. Defendant chose to send that individual (a non-attorney) as her agent to request adjournments twice and, as such, she was

The court afforded defendant several opportunities to appear on this case, adjourning the case twice at the request of an individual sent by defendant who was not an attorney. The matter was marked final for trial against the defendant on July 17, 2014. The circumstances have developed now to the point that it would be impractical and prejudicial to require the claimant to travel from California to re-open this case, and it would be unrealistic or naive to believe that the defendant will travel from California to re-try the case either.

While this court holds a principled and strong preference for cases to be heard on their merits, a party cannot be permitted to delay the case and remain willfully ignorant of its calendar until the claimant is no longer able to prosecute it. It would be prejudicial, at this point, to grant defendant's motion to the detriment of the claimant, who appeared on all three prior court dates and now also lives in California. The net effect of granting this relief would not achieve a determination on the merits but, rather, would likely substitute one default result for the opposite default result.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion is denied and the judgment stands. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.