Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., New City (Paul S. Baum of counsel), for appellant.

Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City (Victoria R. Gionesi of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about February 18, 2020, which denied defendant Byron Willock's motion to vacate a deficiency judgment entered against him upon his default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On appeal, Willock has abandoned his argument that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to oppose plaintiff's motion for a deficiency judgment (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Instead, he claims that plaintiff committed "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct" (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). This argument is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Ta-Chotani v Doubleclick, Inc., 276 AD2d 313 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of Tamara B. v Pete F., 220 AD2d 318 [1st Dept 1995]). In any event, defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiff perpetrated a fraud on him that induced him to refrain from defending the case (see Matter of Renaissance Economic Dev. Corp. v Jin Hua Lin, 126 AD3d 465, 465 [1st Dept 2015], lv dismissed 26 NY3d 953 [2015]). Contrary to defendant's argument, plaintiff presented appraisals setting forth the basis for determining fair market value and showing a range of potential values depending on conditions in the building. Defendant, having received notice of the motion, had the opportunity to appear and present other evidence of value, but instead defaulted. Concur—Kapnick, J.P., Webber, Mazzarelli, Oing, JJ.