Auto-Chlor Sys. of N.Y. City, Inc. v Golden Ratio 1 618 Corp.

Supreme Court, Kings County

Decided on April 7, 2026

Index No. 513204/2023

Aaron D. Maslow, J.

The following numbered papers were used on this motion: NYSCEF Document Numbers 18, 25, 60-93. Defendants did not submit papers in opposition but Defendant Fjolla Sheholli appeared today for oral argument and sought time to obtain an attorney. She also provided an explanation for why she did not respond to the amended complaint.

Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument virtually on Microsoft Teams,FN1 and due deliberation having been had, it is hereby ORDERED as follows.

In this action to recover the amount allegedly due on the lease of a dishwasher to the restaurant Honey Badger, Plaintiff Auto-Chlor Systems of New York City, Inc. d/b/a Auto-Chlor System ("Plaintiff") moves for the following relief cumulatively and alternatively: (1) pursuant to CPLR 3215, declaring Defendants Golden Ratio 1 618 Corp. d/b/a Honey Badger ("Honey Badger") and Fijolla Sheho Bravo a/k/a Fjolla Sheholli ("Sheholli") (collectively "Defendants") in default for failing to answer Plaintiff's June 2, 2025 amended complaint; (2) pursuant to CPLR 3126, striking Defendant Sheholli's original answer for failing to provide discovery; and (3) pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting Plaintiff summary judgment against Defendants in the amount of an unpaid $12,905.77 plus $23,840 in attorneys' fees.

The genesis of this action lies in a contract entered into between Plaintiff and Honey Badger on February 6, 2018, to furnish a dishwashing machine plus detergent to the latter for use in its restaurant business for a five-year period. As president of the corporate entity operating the restaurant, Sheholli signed as the guarantor. The five-year lease contained a base rental rate of $105.00 plus tax, or $212.31 per period, for the first 1,000 wash cycles and an additional .079 per each additional wash cycle.

The original complaint was filed on May 5, 2023. It named only the guarantor, Sheholli, as Defendant. It was served on June 26, 2023. Ms. Sheholli, acting pro se, filed an answer on August 1, 2023 (on NYSCEF). In her answer, Sheholli alleged that Plaintiff breached their agreement by failing to provide the agreed-upon services and then disconnected the dishwasher. She ended up buying a new machine. An employee at Plaintiff, a supervisor named Jean Lorthe, agreed to pick up the dishwasher and adjust the amount due, claimed Sheholli. Plaintiff, however, failed to show up numerous times. This entire saga resulted in disruptions to the restaurant. Sheholli submitted an email from Jean-Elie Lorthe stating, "I, Jean Lorthe, will reverse the $212.31 balance currently standing upon account [redacted] after requiring [sic] the dishwasher from the account's facility." Mr. Lorthe's email address included "autochlor.com," indicating that he was an employee of Plaintiff.

On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff moved to amend its complaint in order to add the corporate name of "Golden Ration 1 618 Corp." (NYSCEF Doc No. 18). Neither Defendant filed opposition. On May 16, 2025, this Court made and entered an order amending the caption to reflect Golden Ratio 1 618 Corp. d/b/a Honey Badger and Fijolla Sheho Brovo a/k/a Fjolloa Sheholli as Defendants.FN2 On May 29, 2025, an amended order was made and entered. Plaintiff was directed to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint embodying the changes attendant to the caption being amended. The supplemental summons and amended complaint, dated June 2, 2025, were served on the corporate Defendant on June 3, 2025; Sheholli herself was served on June 2, 2025, by mail, to her home address, with her apartment number listed as "24P" (NYSCEF Doc No. 77). Neither Defendant answered the amended complaint.

The instant motion was filed on January 27, 2026. As noted above, it seeks the following relief: (1) pursuant to CPLR 3215, declaring Defendants Golden Ratio 1 618 Corp. d/b/a Honey Badger ("Honey Badger") and Fijolla Sheho Bravo a/k/a Fjolla Sheholli ("Sheholli") (collectively "Defendants") in default for failing to answer Plaintiff's June 2, 2025 amended complaint; (2) pursuant to CPLR 3126, striking Defendant Sheholli's original answer for failing to provide discovery; and (3) pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting Plaintiff summary judgment against Defendants in the amount of an unpaid $12,905.77 plus $23,840 in attorneys' fees.

At oral argument, Sheholli explained that her restaurant Honey Badger is located at 67 Fenimore Street, in the Prospect Lefferts Gardens neighborhood of Brooklyn. It is a tasting restaurant where customers are limited to tasting a certain number of items of food. Local farm ingredients are used. Sheholli claims that the dishwasher she leased from Plaintiff did not operate correctly and that she was still storing it at her expense, a claim that was controverted by Plaintiff, who maintained that the dishwasher was repossessed. Sheholli claimed that Plaintiff [*3]promised in the aforesaid email to deal with the amount claimed due. She gave birth to a baby in March 2024, and while she lived in Apartment 24P at one time and definitely on August 1, 2023, when she filed her answer, she had moved in January 2025 to Apartment 24PH (PH being for penthouse). This was a larger apartment than her previous one. Sheholli committed to hiring an attorney — she hired one in the past for the restaurant on another matter — and to proceed to engage with Plaintiff in the litigation. She was willing to be served at her email address with another motion for a default if an answer to the amended complaint was not filed. Sheholli also understood that an attorney was needed to represent her corporation because, as a non-attorney, should could not do so. It was only recently that she received papers in this case, which the Court attributes to the additional service it ordered in its interim order dated March 6, 2026, based on its enhanced service provisions for papers served on self-represented parties (see generally Meleshkov v Sulyma, 84 Misc 3d 1246(A), 2024 NY Slip Op 51693(U) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]; Global Merchant Cash, Inc. v Alexis Group Logistics Co., 84 Misc 3d 1207(A), 2024 NY Slip Op 51380(U) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]; Quamina v Sinclair, 83 Misc 3d 1286[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51227[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]).

"A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (259 Milford, LLC v FV-1, Inc., 211 AD3d 658, 659 [2022], quoting Emigrant Sav. Bank v Burke, 199 AD3d 652, 652 [2021]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Joseph, 209 AD3d 633 [2022]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court's discretion (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Lewis, 232 AD3d 649, 651 [2024], quoting U.S. Bank N.A. v Smith, 210 AD3d 725, 728 [2022]). (Cross v Caterers, 241 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2d Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted].) This showing likewise must be made by a defendant opposing a plaintiff's facially adequate motion for a default judgment (Plaintiff's motion was facially adequate) (see Wang v IV—CVCF NEB REO, LLC, 227 AD3d 937, 939 [2d Dept 2024]).

Here, Sheholli presented a reasonable excuse by attesting to her having moved from Apartment 24P to Apartment 24PH in January 2025. The supplemental summons and amended complaint were served on Sheholli on June 2, 2025, by mail, to her home address, with her apartment number listed as "24P." Moreover, she was taking care of her newborn son (born in March 2024), who had health issues, which affected her ability to operate the restaurant. As for a potentially meritorious defense, Sheholli averred in her answer to the original complaint and presently in opposition to the motion that Plaintiff breached the contract as there were problems with the dishwasher and had agreed to reverse at least one due payment and retrieve the equipment.

"Although the Supreme Court erred in determining that the plaintiffs did not establish that the defendant failed to timely answer the amended complaint (see CPLR 3211 [f]), it nevertheless properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant, and, in effect, granted the defendant's cross motion for leave to serve a late answer. The defendant offered a reasonable excuse for the default, the plaintiffs were not prejudiced, the default was not willful, the defendant established that he had potentially meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, and there is a strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merit (see Ingvarsdottir v Gaines, Gruner, Ponzini & Novick, LLP, 144 AD3d 1097, 1099 [2016]; Fried v Jacob Holding, Inc., 110 AD3d 56 [2013]; Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876, 876-877 [2005])." (Oparaji v Vessup, 158 AD3d 636, 637 [2d Dept [*4]2018].)

Additionally, the purpose of Plaintiff's amended complaint's was to add the corporate defendant. The allegations against Sheholli were duplicative of those in the original complaint concerning which she answered. Hence, insofar as Sheholli is concerned, the amended complaint might be deemed a supplemental complaint requiring no answer (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Deblinger, 235 AD3d 1025 [2d Dept 2025]). Of course, the corporate defendant doing business as Honey Badger had to have answered the amended complaint as it was named as a defendant for the first time.

Further, in light of the foregoing plus Sheholli's commitment to retaining an attorney to file and serve an answer to the amended complaint on behalf of her and the corporate defendant doing business as Honey Badger, her earnest desire to deal with the instant litigation, and her concession to be served via email with another motion should the amended complaint not be answered, the Court takes into account the interest of justice factor that Sheholli and her company be permitted to pursue their defensive claims in the nature of breach of contract in opposition to Plaintiff's claim of payments due. "[A] party is not necessarily required to establish a reasonable excuse in order to be entitled to vacatur in the interest of justice" (Slate Advance v Saygan Global Steel, Ltd., 206 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept 2022; see also Castillo-Florez v Charlecius, 220 AD3d 1 [2d Dept 2023]; Beizer v Funk, 5 AD3d 619 [2d Dept 2004]).

The Court recognizes that pro se litigants might not be familiar with legal procedures (e.g. Brown v Lavine, 45 AD2d 753 [2d Dept 1974] [new administrative hearing afforded pro se individual who erroneously thought pre-hearing off-the-record defense presented to hearing officer was on the record]), and that certain latitude may be afforded (e.g. Haverlin v Gottlieb, 49 Misc 3d 131[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51750[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Dists. 2015] [motion providently construed as one to renew]; Bank Trust Natl. Assn. v Dubrowski, 2024 WL 3312482 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024] [court will examine claim under uncited provision as well as cited one]; Matter of J.E.P. v People, 9 Misc 3d 1104[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51397[U] [Fam Ct, Nassau County 2005] [incorrect caption and minor technical deficiencies in papers excused]). A pro se defendant might not be aware of the responsibility to inform the adversary and the court that the address set forth in her answer had changed in order to facilitate further service of papers during the litigation.

In light of the foregoing, the court denies that branch of Plaintiff's motion which sought a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215. This applies both to Defendant Sheholli as well as to her corporate entity under which the Honey Badger restaurant is operated.

Since there are material issues of fact in dispute, that branch of Plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment must be denied (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Also, the Court discerns no willfulness or contumaciousness in Sheholli's failure to provide discovery which would support striking her answer (see Plenty v New York City Tr. Auth., 229 AD3d 571 [2d Dept 2024]).

Accordingly, the within motion of Plaintiff is DENIED in its entirety; and Defendants shall serve and file an answer to the amended complaint by uploading it to NYSCEF by May 8, 2026. Both parties shall email the law clerks if and when an answer is filed. In the event a proper answer is not so filed, Plaintiff is granted leave to move anew for a default judgment by order to show cause with a copy of this order being included in the supporting papers, and Part 72 shall refer the order to show cause to the undersigned for review.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.