Platinum House Corp. v Zhiwen Ye

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Decided on May 14, 2026

Index No. LT-311290-21/KI

Turquoise Haskin, J.

Upon the foregoing cited papers, and after oral argument, Respondent Zhiwen Ye's ("Respondent Ye") Order to Show Cause to Vacate the Default Judgment is decided as follows:

On December 20, 2021, Petitioner Platinum House Corp. ("Petitioner") commenced the instant commercial nonpayment proceeding against Respondents Ye and Spa Liability Inc. (collectively, "Respondents-Tenants").

According to the affidavits of service filed with this Court, fourteen (14) day rent demands were served on Respondents-Tenants on July 10, 2021, via conspicuous service, at the commercial premises located at 774 49th Street, ground floor, Brooklyn, NY 11220 ("Subject Premises"), following attempts at personal service. They were also mailed by regular and certified mail to the Subject Premises. The process server documented that the commercial location was closed and under renovation.

Thereafter, on December 10, 2021, after attempts at personal service, Petitioner served Respondents-Tenants with the Notice of Petition and Petition by conspicuous service at 774 49th Street, Ground Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11229, and copies of the pleadings were mailed to the same address. The process server noted that the commercial location was closed, and attached a photograph of the front door of the business. Notably, the zip code listed in the affidavit of service (11229) differs from the zip code associated with Respondent Ye's business in the pleadings (11220).

Following Respondents-Tenants' failure to answer or appear, Petitioner was granted a judgment of possession and a monetary judgment of $135,000 on default on June 23, 2022.

Most recently, on February 20, 2026, Respondent Ye filed the instant Order to Show Cause, pro se, asserting that he was not served with the Notice of Petition and Petition, and does not have a company called Spa Liability Inc. In supplemental papers submitted by his newly retained counsel, Respondent Ye maintained that he was neither served with the predicate notice nor any court documents, and only learned of the default judgment after he was given an income execution by his employer. He also argued that the lease explicitly states that all notices must be served at his residential address, 1048 62nd Street, Apt. 1, Brooklyn, NY 11219 ("Residential Address"); yet, he was never served there as corroborated by the affidavits of service. Respondent Ye explained that in the beginning of 2020, prior to any attempts at service, he was locked out of the Subject Premises. Respondent Ye's former partner, Ping Mei Wang, submitted an affirmation to buttress his allegations.

In opposition, Petitioner averred that Respondents-Tenants were properly served, as evidenced by the affidavit of service, and argued that they failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for his default or a meritorious defense to the underlying petition, both of which are required to vacate a four-year-old judgment. Petitioner insists that Spa Liability Inc. was properly served, as it was informed that it was the name of Respondent Ye's company. By a [*2]second affirmation in opposition, in response to Respondent Ye's supplemental papers, Petitioner explained that after Respondent Ye failed to pay the April 2020 rent, Chen Yuen Cheng ("Mr. Cheng"), its President, went to his Residential Address and discovered that he no longer lived there. Petitioner noted that Respondent Ye admitted that he moved from that address shortly after signing the lease. Moreover, Petitioner contended that Respondent Ye had notice of the default judgment as early as June 9, 2023 because HK Recovery Group, Inc., a debt collection agency, received funds on that date, and that he waited over two years to file the instant Order to Show Cause. To support its contentions, a client payment statement was annexed, which listed Respondent Ye as the debtor, and reflected that $62.90 was paid on June 9, 2023 (see Exhibit "1"). However, the statement does not indicate how the funds were obtained, or whether payments were made after June 9, 2023.

Respondent Ye, in rebuttal, asserted that he planned to open a yoga studio at the Subject Premises in April 2020, but did not have the chance to do so due to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the city was shut down and stay-at-home orders were in effect. He explained that, in Spring 2020, he returned to the Subject Premises to continue renovations, and discovered that a chain and lock had been placed on the door. Respondent Ye averred that he did not recall speaking with Mr. Cheng, who signed the lease on Petitioner's behalf, after that.

Respondent Ye admitted that he and his family moved from his Residential Address in December 2019 to 887 72nd Street, and maintained that neither Mr. Cheng nor anyone from Petitioner requested an updated address. He further denied receiving any communications from a debt collection agency regarding the judgment in this case, denied making any payments to HK Recovery Group, Inc. in June 2023, and denied any knowledge of the company. Thus, Respondent Ye requested that this Court, pursuant to CPLR § 5015(a)(4), vacate the default judgment and dismiss the action or, alternatively, order a traverse hearing.

Vacatur of the Default Judgment

"CPLR 5015 (a) (1) provides that a court may relieve a party from a judgment upon the ground of 'excusable default.' A party seeking relief under this statutory provision 'must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense'" (109th Affordable Hous. L.L.C. v Beck, 2024 NY Slip Op 31533[U], 2 [Civ Ct, New York County 2024] [internal citations omitted]). "[W]here, as here, a defendant seeking to vacate a default raises a jurisdictional objection pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4), the court is required to resolve the jurisdictional question before determining whether it is appropriate to grant a discretionary vacatur of the default" (Rattner v Fessler, 202 AD3d 1011, 1015 [2d Dept 2022]). "Thus, to warrant a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the denial of service must be substantiated by specific, detailed facts that contradict the affidavit of service, shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction at a hearing by a preponderance of the evidence" (Palacios v Prestia, 2020 NY Misc. LEXIS 53357, 10 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2020]).

Here, Respondent Ye asserted in his detailed affirmation, that he was not served with the pleadings. He maintained that he was locked out of the Subject Premises at the beginning of 2020, well before any attempts were made to serve him there, and that he was not served at his Residential Address, as required by the terms of the lease. Moreover, an examination of the affidavits of service consistently reflects that the Subject Premises were closed. The affidavits of service for the Notice of Petition and Petition also reflect a zip code (11229) that differs from the zip code of the Subject Premises (11220).

While Respondent acknowledged that he moved from his Residential Address in 2019, Petitioner did not demonstrate, with competent evidence, that it made any efforts to serve him there, as required by the lease. Respondent Ye's detailed affirmation denying service, corroborated by the affidavits of service and the lease, raises a jurisdictional question warranting a traverse hearing.

Timeliness of Respondent Ye's Order to Show Cause

"[T]he mere fact that a defendant, like defendant here, was subject to payments pursuant to a wage garnishment order for more than one year without taking some action is not, without more, a proper basis for finding waiver of the ability to seek relief under CPLR 5015(a)(4)" (Esgro Capital Mgt. LLC v Banks, 84 Misc 3d 1266[A], 4 [Civ Ct, New York County 2025] [internal citations omitted]). It must be established that a "defendant's particular actions amount to 'an intentional relinquishment of a known right' and results from the taking of some affirmative action evincing the intent to accept a judgment's validity" (Id. at 5). While a defendant must generally file a motion to vacate a default judgment within one year of service of the judgment, "courts are permitted to exercise discretion in extending that time period" (Lvnv Funding v. Smith, 2022 NYLJ LEXIS 1909, 7 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2022]).

In the instant case, Petitioner claimed that Respondent Ye had actual notice of the default judgment as early as June 9, 2023, and that he waited over two years to file the instant application. However, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish same. Despite the payment summary from the debt collection agency, which reflected that a payment of $62.90 was made in June 2023, and listed Respondent Ye as the debtor, Petitioner has not shown how this payment was made. It is unclear whether it was received as a voluntary payment or by wage garnishment, and whether additional payments were made by Respondent Ye after June 2023. The complete lack of details surrounding this singular payment coupled with Respondent Ye's assertion that he was not aware of the payment, raises a question as to whether he had actual notice of the default judgment. Therefore, Petitioner has not established that Respondent waived relief available under CPLR § 5015(a)(4) (Esgro Capital Mgt. LLC v Banks, 84 Misc 3d 1266[A] at 4).

Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that Respondent's Order to Show Cause to Vacate the Default Judgment shall be held in abeyance pending a determination of the traverse hearing; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the traverse hearing shall be held in Part 52, Room 604, on June 15, 2026, at 9:30 AM.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Date: May 14, 2026

Honorable Turquoise Haskin

Civil Court Judge