Sum Certain. CPLR § 3215(a)(b)

The Supreme Court erred in excusing the defendant's default in
appearing and answering, and in allowing it to serve an answer. The
defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that it had not
received the summons and complaint in time to defend itself so as to
entitle it to vacatur of its default under CPLR 317 (see Guayara v
First Rockaway Coast Corp., 35 AD3d 659; cf. Taieb v Hilton
Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725; Brockington v Brookfield Dev. Corp., 308
AD2d 498). The defendant also failed to establish a reasonable excuse
for that default. Thus, it was not entitled to vacatur under CPLR 5015 (see
Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Taylor
v Saal, 4 AD3d 467; Dominguez v Carioscia, 1 AD3d 396; Kaplinsky
v Mazor, 307 AD2d 916).

However, because the plaintiff is not seeking to recover a "sum
certain" within the meaning of CPLR 3215(a), its claim that the Clerk
had the authority to enter the judgment in its favor is without merit (see
Congregation Chaim Barucha v Friedman, 62 AD3d 933; Ayres Mem.
Animal Shelter, Inc. v Montgomery County Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty
of Animals, 17 AD3d 904, 905; Geer, Du Bois & Co. v Scott
& Sons Co., 25 AD2d 423, 423-424; see also Reynolds Sec. [*2]v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44
NY2d 568, 572). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme
Court, Nassau County for an inquest and the entry thereafter of an
appropriate judgment (see CPLR 3215[b]).