The opinion
McLaughlin & Stern, LLP v Rocketstar, Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 30988(U)
March 16, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 154260/2025
Judge: James d'Auguste
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1542602025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX049_TO.html[03/24/2026 3:45:44 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 11:58 AM INDEX NO. 154260/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: Hon. James E. d’Auguste PART 55
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 154260/2025
MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP,
MOTION DATE 11/19/2025
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 002
-v-
ROCKETSTAR, INC., CHRISTOPHER CRADDOCK, DECISION + ORDER ON
MOTION
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 73
were read on this motion to/for VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD.
Defendants Rocketstar Inc. (“Rocketstar”) and Christoper Craddock (“Craddock”)
seek, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), to vacate a money judgment entered on default. The motion
is denied.
On March 31, 2025, plaintiff McLaughlin and Stern, LLP (“MS”) commenced this
action by filing a summons and verified complaint. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1, 2. On April 4,
2025, Rocketstar was served via the New York Secretary of State. NYSCEF Doc. No. 6. On
April 8, 2025, Craddock was personally served with process. NYSCEF Doc. No. 7. After
defendants failed to appear in this action, defendants were each served with an “additional
mailing” of the pleadings. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 8, 9. On July 30, 2025, a money judgment
was entered against defendants.
On or about August 4, 2025, information subpoenas were served on defendants, which
were apparently ignored. On November 10, 2025, Dime Savings Bank received an
154260/2025 MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP vs. ROCKETSTAR, INC. ET ANO Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 002
1 of 4
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 11:58 AM INDEX NO. 154260/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
information subpoena and restraining notice. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 29, 31. On November 12,
2025, Dime notified Rocketstar that it was complying with the restraining notice.
On November 18, 2025, defendants filed the instant application seeking to vacate the
default judgment entered against them. To be entitled to the requested relief, defendants were
required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially
meritorious defense. 979 Second Avenue, LLC v. Chao, 227 A.D.3d 436, 436 (1st Dep’t
2024). Here, defendants failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for their default in
appearing or a potentially meritorious defense to the allegations asserted in this action.
As an initial matter, defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for
defaulting in this action. Rocketstar was properly served via the New York Secretary of State.
Craddock was personally served with process at his home. Thereafter, defendants received
“additional mailings” of the pleadings prior to the entry of a default judgment in this matter.
Defendants provide no legitimate basis for having ignored a known lawsuit. Under the
circumstances, defendants do not have a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear and
contest this matter. On this basis alone, the motion is required to be denied. J.C. by Sanabria
v. 2078 Arthur, LLC, 244 A.D.3d 530, 531 (1st Dep’t 2025) (noting that it is unnecessary to
consider a potentially meritorious defense when movant fails to demonstrate a reasonable
excuse for a default); Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Cabadiana, 230 A.D.2d 831,
832-33 (2d Dep’t 2024) (same).
Although academic, in view of the complete absence of a reasonable excuse for
having defaulted in this matter, the Court notes that defendants have also failed to
demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense in this matter. MS performed legal services for
defendants. They mailed bills month after month, which were not disputed. Defendants
154260/2025 MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP vs. ROCKETSTAR, INC. ET ANO Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 002
2 of 4
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 11:58 AM INDEX NO. 154260/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
promised payment on the outstanding bills in an email, but reneged on this commitment. In
contrast to overwhelming support for liability under account stated and breach of contract
theories of recovery, defendants assert little more than belated vague and conclusory
assertions that are insufficient to show any potential basis for casting doubt on their liability
for the sums awarded in the default judgment previously entered against them.
The only assertion that warrants an additional discussion is defendants’ contention that
MS failed to properly serve defendants with a Notice of Client’s Rights to Fee Arbitration due
to delivery of the notice to defendants’ attorney, Michael Ledley, Esq., rather than directly to
defendants. NYSCEF Doc. No. 30. On January 31, 2025, Donald Pearce sent defendants an
email attaching a letter demanding payment for the outstanding debt. NYSCEF Doc. No. 44.
On February 6, 2025, Craddock sent a responsive email stating: “Please direct all
communications to Michael Ledley, counsel for Rocketstar. He has been cc’d on this e-mail.”
NYSCEF Doc. No. 45. Thereafter, Pearce directly emailed Ledley, who confirmed that he
was representing defendants. NYSCEF Doc. No. 46. In conformance with defendants’
directive to communicate with their counsel and Pearce’s ethical obligations under 22
NYCRR 1200.33(a), Pearce sent a Notice of Client’s Right to Arbitrate and Client Request
for Fee Arbitration to Ledley via email and certified first class mail return receipt requested.
NYSCEF Doc. No. 47. Notably, Pearce communicated this to defendants’ current counsel,
Marc Elliot, Esq. NYSCEF Doc. No. 57. Given the foregoing, MS complied with 22
NYCRR 137.6 by giving notice in the manner requested by defendants and consistent with the
ethical obligations of plaintiff’s counsel. None of the cases relied upon by defendants support
a different result.
154260/2025 MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP vs. ROCKETSTAR, INC. ET ANO Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 002
3 of 4
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 11:58 AM INDEX NO. 154260/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
As defendants failed to meet their burden on the application seeking to vacate the
default judgment entered against them, the motion is denied.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
3/16/2026 $SIG$
DATE James d’Auguste, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
154260/2025 MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP vs. ROCKETSTAR, INC. ET ANO Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 002
4 of 4
[* 4]