In commercial litigation, default judgments are often assumed to be straightforward. If the defendant does not appear, many assume judgment will follow as a matter of course. A recent decision from the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division, reminds practitioners that this assumption is mistaken.
In Hillebrand Gori USA LLC v. Wolff & Troy, LLC, Justice Emily Morales-Minerva denied a motion for default judgment—not because the defendant appeared, but because the plaintiff failed to meet its procedural and substantive burdens. The decision offers several practical lessons for commercial litigators, particularly in contract cases filed in notice-pleading jurisdictions like New York.
What Is a Default Judgment?
A default judgment is a court ruling entered against a defendant who fails to appear, answer, or otherwise respond to a lawsuit within the time required by law. In New York commercial litigation, default judgments are governed primarily by CPLR 3215.
Importantly, a default judgment is not automatic. Even where a defendant has failed to appear, the plaintiff must still demonstrate proper service, compliance with procedural requirements, and a prima facie showing of liability and damages. Courts retain an independent obligation to review the record before granting judgment.
This distinction—between non-appearance and entitlement to judgment—is central to the court’s analysis in Hillebrand Gori.
The Elements of a Breach of Contract Still Matter
At the heart of the decision is a familiar rule: to prevail on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must establish:
- the existence of a contract
- the plaintiff’s performance
- the defendant’s breach
- resulting damages
Justice Morales-Minerva emphasized that even on a default motion, the court must be satisfied that these elements are supported by non-conclusory facts. The complaint in Hillebrand Gori alleged that the parties entered into an agreement and that services were provided in exchange for payment, but it did not attach the contract, identify essential terms, or explain how the agreement operated in practice.
Without those details, the court explained, it could not assess performance, breach, or damages. Default does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to show a prima facie case.
Why Detailed Contract Pleading Still Matters in Notice-Pleading Jurisdictions
New York is a notice-pleading jurisdiction, and courts do not require the level of factual detail demanded in some federal contexts. Even so, this case illustrates why a carefully drafted complaint can matter—especially in commercial litigation.
A well-pleaded complaint does more than satisfy CPLR standards. It gives the court and opposing counsel a coherent picture of what actually happened. It frames the dispute, anchors the legal theories, and reduces ambiguity when motions are later filed without adversarial briefing.
This is particularly important when seeking a default judgment. The court is reviewing the record alone. Conclusory allegations, even if technically sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, may not be enough to carry the plaintiff’s burden under CPLR 3215.
Default Judgment Is Not a Rubber Stamp
Justice Morales-Minerva quoted settled First Department authority: default judgments are not meant to be rubber-stamped once service and non-appearance are shown. Courts must still assess whether the uncontested claims are facially valid.
In Hillebrand Gori, the motion failed not only on the contract claim, but also on the account stated claim. The plaintiff submitted invoices but did not adequately show transmission, receipt, retention without objection, or partial payment. Even absent opposition, the evidentiary gaps were fatal—at least for the time being.
The court denied the motion without prejudice, allowing renewal. But the message was clear: default judgment remains a process, not a formality.
Procedural Precision Matters—Especially Against LLCs
The decision also highlights a common pitfall in commercial litigation against limited liability companies. When service is made through the Secretary of State, CPLR 3215 requires additional mailing to the defendant’s last known address. Justice Morales-Minerva found the plaintiff’s proof deficient because the affidavit did not adequately establish that the mailing was sent to the LLC’s actual last known address or explain the basis for that assertion.
These details may seem technical, but Commercial Division judges routinely enforce them. Procedural shortcuts can delay relief even where liability may ultimately be provable.
Why Experience and Red Teaming Matter in Important Cases
This case is not about criticizing any particular lawyer. It is about recognizing that commercial litigation is unforgiving of small process failures, especially when no adversary is present to flag them early.
For matters that truly matter, it is often wise to involve more than one experienced New York commercial litigation lawyer. Many sophisticated litigation teams use red teaming—the practice of having one lawyer or group independently review pleadings and motions as if they were opposing counsel or the court. The goal is to identify weaknesses, missing elements, or procedural risks before they become dispositive.
Red teaming is not about over-lawyering routine disputes. It is about reducing avoidable risk in high-stakes matters where outcomes turn on details rather than drama.
Conclusion
Hillebrand Gori is a reminder that substance and process remain intertwined in New York commercial litigation. Contracts must be pleaded with enough specificity to allow judicial review. Default judgments require proof, not assumptions. And procedural rigor matters even when the other side is silent.
For businesses and litigants, the takeaway is straightforward: careful drafting, experienced counsel, and disciplined review processes can prevent small errors from becoming large problems.
About Equal Justice Solutions
Equal Justice Solutions is a faith-driven law firm serving ethical companies, whistleblowers, and individuals facing serious harm or systemic injustice. We bring Big Law–level precision to high-stakes matters without the bloat, misaligned incentives, or hollow billing practices that often undermine legal judgment. Grounded in Catholic social teaching, we understand the practice of law as a vocation—one that calls for excellence, integrity, and love expressed through the faithful delivery of legal services.
We service Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York.
