Category: CPLR § 317

Personal Jurisdiction waived and waited too long to bring up 317

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Soussis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07294 [2d Dept. 2018]

The defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The defendant appeared in the action by serving a notice of appearance, and neither she nor her attorney moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time or asserted lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive pleading (see CPLR 320[a], [b]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Pepe, 161 AD3d 811, 812-813; Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Zimmerman, 157 AD3d 846, 847; American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Arklis, 150 AD3d 1180, 1181; National Loan Invs., L.P. v Piscitello, 21 AD3d 537, 538).

The defendant’s contention that she was entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 317 is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Saketos, 158 AD3d 610, 612).

CPLR 3215 and 317 standard

Kircher v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 07295 [2d Dept. 2018]

“On a motion for leave to enter judgment against a defendant for the failure to answer or appear, a plaintiff must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting its claim, and proof of the defendant’s default” (Triangle Props. # 2, LLC v Narang, 73 AD3d 1030, 1032; see CPLR 3215[f]; Mercury Cas. Co. v Surgical Ctr. at Milburn, LLC, 65 AD3d 1102). Here, the plaintiff submitted proof that it properly effected service of process upon the defendant pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212 by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the Superintendent of Insurance (see Insurance Law § 1212[a]). The plaintiff also submitted proof of the facts constituting the claim and proof of the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint. Thus, the plaintiff established her entitlement to enter a default judgment against the defendant (see Seidler v Knopf, 153 AD3d 874, 875; Cruz v Keter Residence, LLC, 115 AD3d 700).

However, in opposition, the defendant established its entitlement to relief from its default under CPLR 317. “Pursuant to CPLR 317, a defaulting defendant who was served with a summons other than by personal delivery’ may be permitted to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense” (Booso v Tausik Bros., LLC, 148 AD3d 1108, 1108, quoting CPLR 317; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d 974, 975). There is no necessity for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse for its delay (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A. C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d at 141; Booso v Tausik Bros., LLC, 148 AD3d at 1108; see also Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d 404, 405). Here, the defendant met its burden of showing that it did not receive actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Superintendent of Insurance, in time to defend itself against this action (see Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d at 975; Ferguson v Shu Ham Lam, 59 AD3d 387, 388; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 543, 544). Moreover, there is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that the defendant was deliberately attempting to avoid service of process (see Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d at 975; Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d at 405). Furthermore, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense.

Vacatur

2004 McDonald Ave. Corp. v KGYM Holdings Group, Inc.,  2018 NY Slip Op 06508 [2d Dept. 2018]

CPLR 317 applies where a defendant was served by means other than personal delivery, did not receive notice of the action, and has a potentially meritorious defense (see Booso v Tausik Bros. LLC., 148 AD3d 1108). Here, the defendants claimed they were never served. Therefore, they sought to vacate the default judgment against them pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) for lack of personal jurisdiction. On this point, the affidavit of service of a process server generally constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (see US Bank N.A. v Ramos, 153 AD3d 882; Central Mtge. Co. v Ward, 127 AD3d 803). In this case, however, the process server submitted affidavits of exercising due diligence to attempt service, not affidavits of service.

If service is not made, the default judgment is a nullity (see Ariowitsch v Johnson, 114 AD2d 184). If a defendant is not served, “notice received by means other than those authorized by statute cannot serve to bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court” (Feinstein v Bergner, 48 NY2d 234, 241).

Sposito v Cutting, 2018 NY Slip Op 06782 [2d Dept. 2018]

“As a general rule, a defendant who seeks to vacate a default in appearing at a compliance conference is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense” (Foley Inc. v Metropolis Superstructures, Inc., 130 AD3d 680, 680; see Polsky v Simon, 145 AD3d 693). Here, the defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the compliance conference on November 29, 2016, including the fact that he had been hospitalized from mid-September to late October 2016 for injuries sustained in a fall. In addition, notice of the conference was sent to the subject property and, although the defendant’s grandson resided there, it was never the defendant’s residence and the defenedant denied any knowledge of the November 29, 2016, conference. The defendant also demonstrated that he did not receive notice of the adjourned conference date of January 24, 2017, and the record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that such notice was, in fact, given to him. Under such circumstances, the defendant’s nonappearance for the conference on January 24, 2017, could not constitute a default, as there was no failure to perform a legal duty (see Notaro v Performance Team, 161 AD3d 1093; Foley Inc. v Metropolis Superstructures, Inc., 130 AD3d at 681). “This is analogous to the situation of a defendant who has not been served with process and suffers a default judgment. In both situations, the default’ is a nullity along with the remedy the court renders in response” (Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d 375, 376). As the defendant’s default in appearing at the conference on January 24, 2017, is considered a nullity, vacatur of that default ” is required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense is required'” (Notaro v Performance Team, 161 AD3d at 1095, quoting Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 78 AD3d 630, 632; see Matter of 542 A Realty, LLC, 118 AD3d 993, 994; Pavlou v Associates Food Stores, Inc., 96 AD3d 919). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have vacated the default and the notice of inquest as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense was required.

In addition, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness. Since the defendant moved for such relief more than 20 days after service of the note of issue and certificate of readiness, he had to show good cause for vacatur (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[e]). “To satisfy the requirement of good cause,’ the party seeking vacatur must demonstrate that unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice'” (Ferraro v North Babylon Union Free School Dist., 69 AD3d 559, 561, quoting White v Mazella-White, 60 AD3d 1047, 1049 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, for the reasons set forth above, particularly that the defendant’s failure to appear at the conference on January 24, 2017, did not constitute a default and warranted vacatur of the default and the notice of inquest as a matter of law and due process, the defendant established good cause for vacating the note of issue and certificate of readiness.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to, in effect, vacate his default in appearing for two scheduled court conferences

Rosario v Naranjo, 2018 NY Slip Op 06780 [2d Dept. 2018]

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering the complaint pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A. C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Goldfarb v Zhukov, 145 AD3d 757, 758; Li Fen Li v Cannon Co., Inc., 155 AD3d 858, 859). “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” (Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876, 876-877; see Gomez v Gomez-Trimarchi, 137 AD3d 972, 973).

A.G. Parker, Inc. v 246 Rochester Partners, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06711 [2d Dept. 2018]

A party is precluded from moving to vacate its default on grounds asserted in a prior motion to vacate the default that had been previously denied in an order from which it took no appeal as well as on grounds that were apparent at the time that the party made the prior motion but were not asserted therein (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Davis, 161 AD3d 808; LaSalle Natl. Bank Assn. v Odato, 126 AD3d 675, 676; Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v Brown, 112 AD3d 668, 670; Lambert v Schreiber, 95 AD3d 1282, 1283; Bianco v Dougherty, 54 AD2d 681).

Itshaik v Singh, 2018 NY Slip Op 06888 [2d Dept. 2018]

“When a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment 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 under CPLR 5015(a)(1)” (Canelas v Flores, 112 AD3d 871, 871; see Community W. Bank, N.A. v Stephen, 127 AD3d 1008, 1009; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Miller, 121 AD3d 1044, 1045). A defendant moving to vacate a judgment entered upon his or her default in appearing or answering the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction “is not required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense” (Prudence v Wright, 94 AD3d 1073, 1073; see Falvo v Cerra, 127 AD3d 919, 920). “[T]he failure to serve process in an action leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void” (Krisilas v Mount Sinai Hosp., 63 AD3d 887, 889 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, through his submissions, the defendant established that the Supreme Court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over him (see CPLR 5015[a][4]). The plaintiff contends that the defendant was estopped from challenging service upon him at the West End Avenue address pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505(5), which requires that every motor vehicle licensee notify the Commissioner of the DMV of any change in residence within 10 days of the change and make a notation of such change of residence on the license. However, under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant did not provide the West End Avenue address at the time of the accident, where the record does not contain a DMV driver’s abstract for the defendant, and where the plaintiff identified the motor vehicle allegedly involved in this accident as belonging to a neighbor, the plaintiff’s contention is without merit (cf. Canelas v Flores, 112 AD3d at 871-872). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to vacate the order dated July 11, 2016, and for leave to serve a late answer, based on lack of jurisdiction (see CPLR 5015[a][4]; Falvo v Cerra, 127 AD3d at 920).

In light of our determination of the jurisdictional issue, we need not reach the parties’ contentions regarding a discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1). Moreover, the parties’ contentions regarding CPLR 317, which were not raised before the Supreme Court, are not properly before this Court.

CPLR 317

Stevens v Stepanski, 2018 NY Slip Op 05954 [2d Dept 2018]

CPLR 317 permits a defendant who has been served with a summons other than by personal delivery to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Xiao Lou Li v China Cheung Gee Realty, LLC, 139 AD3d 724, 724-725). "[S]ervice on a corporation through delivery of process to the Secretary of State is not personal delivery' to the corporation" (Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d at 142). "The mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint is not sufficient to establish lack of actual notice of the action in time to defend for the purpose of CPLR 317" (Goldfarb v Zhukov, 145 AD3d 757, 758; see Ultimate One Distrib. Corp. v 2900 Stillwell Ave., LLC, 140 AD3d 1054, 1055). Whether to grant relief pursuant to CPLR 317 is discretionary (see Goldfarb v Zhukov, 145 AD3d at 759), and relief may be denied "where, for example, a defendant's failure to personally receive notice of the summons was a result of a deliberate attempt to avoid such notice" (Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d at 143).

Here, Greenville did not contend that the address it kept on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect, and its shareholders effectively claimed ignorance as to why the summons and complaint were "unclaimed," without offering any details as to how Greenville ordinarily received mail at that address. Further, Greenville offered no explanation as to why it did not receive any of the other correspondence from the plaintiff, all of which were sent to the same address. Under these circumstances, Greenville's conclusory and unsubstantiated denial of service of the certified mailing card and other correspondence from the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that it did not have actual notice of the action in time to defend (see Xiao Lou Li v China Cheung Gee Realty, LLC, 139 AD3d at 725-726; see also Moran v Grand Slam Ventures, LLC, 160 AD3d 944). Although the return of a summons and complaint to the Secretary of State as "unclaimed" may be sufficient to warrant a hearing on the issue of whether a defendant had notice of the action in time to defend (see Drillman v Marsam Realty 13th Ave., LLC, 129 AD3d 903, 903-904), here, Greenville's failure to offer any details as to why it did not receive the certified mailing card or any of the other correspondence from the plaintiff during the pendency of the action was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact warranting a hearing (see Baez v Ende Realty Corp., 78 AD3d 576, 576; see also Clover M. Barrett, P.C. v Gordon, 90 AD3d 973, 973-974). In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to determine whether Greenville demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Xiao Lou Li v China Cheung Gee Realty, LLC, 139 AD3d at 726).

5015(a)(3); 317; 2005; Renewal Judgment

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order
(a) On motion
(1) excusable default…
(2) newly-discovered evidence…
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party
(4) lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order
(5) reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based

CPLR § 317

CPLR § 2005

Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. v Rogers, 2011 NY Slip Op 03729 (App. DIv., 1st 2011)

Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate its prior order granting a permanent stay of arbitration of respondents Rogers and Westwater's uninsured motorist claim, which was granted upon their failure to appear at the petition hearing or to submit papers in opposition. Vacatur should have been granted on the ground of "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party" (CPLR 5015[a][3]). A review of the record in this case reveals several potential instances of intentional and material misrepresentations of fact by petitioner, which, at least in part, may have formed the basis of Supreme Court's decision and order to permanently stay arbitration. Hence, it was an abuse of discretion to conclude that the failure to proffer a reasonable excuse precluded relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), since that section does not require such a showing (cf. CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see Shouse v Lyons, 4 AD3d 821, 822 [2004]). To the extent that some of respondents' allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct are not conclusively established by the evidence in the record, they present issues of fact which should not be determined without holding a hearing (Readick v Readick, 80 AD3d 512, 513 [2011]; see also Tonawonda Sch. Emples. Fed. Credit Union v Zack, 242 AD2d 894, 894-95 [1997]).

Olivaria v Lin & Son Realty, Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 03655 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Relief under CPLR 5015(a)(1) was properly denied. The record shows that Lin did not receive process because it failed to maintain a current address on file with the Secretary of State for 18 years (see On Assignment v Medasorb Tech., LLC, 50 AD3d 342 [2008]; Business Corporation Law § 408).

The Supreme Court should not have concluded, however, that Lin's request for relief under CPLR 317 was untimely. The statute permits a defendant who has been "served with a summons other than by personal delivery" and has not appeared to defend the action upon a finding of the court that the defendant "did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense" (CPLR 317). A defendant so served may be allowed to defend the action "within one year after [such defendant] obtains knowledge of entry of the judgment, but in no event more than five years after such entry . . ." (id.)[FN1]. In making a CPLR 317 motion, a defendant does not have to come forward with a reasonable excuse for its default (see Pena v Mittleman, 179 AD2d 607, 609 [1992]).

By regarding the February 4, 2003 order as an entered judgment, the court reached the conclusion that the statutory five-year period had expired. This was error. "A judgment is entered when, after it has been signed by the clerk, it is filed by him" (CPLR 5016[a]). Unlike the 2003 order, the 2009 judgment was duly signed and entered by the County Clerk. Accordingly, the motion was timely because August 20, 2009 is the date of entry from which Lin's time is to be measured.

The lease between Lin and the injured plaintiff's employer provided for heating through perimeter ducts and made no mention of portable heaters. Lin's president states by affidavit that the company had no knowledge of the tenant's use of portable heaters. Thus, Lin has demonstrated, prima facie, that it has a meritorious defense to plaintiffs' claims. Moreover, it does not appear that Lin deliberately attempted to avoid notice of this action (see e.g. Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143 [1986]). In the exercise of discretion, we therefore grant Lin's motion to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317.

Casali v Cyran, 2011 NY Slip Op 03791 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

To vacate his default, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015[a]; Legaretta v Ekhstor, 74 AD3d 899; Rivera v Komor, 69 AD3d 833; Nowell v NYU Med. Ctr., 55 AD3d 573). The plaintiff's excuse for failing to oppose the motion of the defendant Daniel J. Cyran for summary judgment dismissing the compaint insofar as asserted against Cyran can only be classified as law office failure. Although the Supreme Court has the discretion to excuse a default resulting from law office failure (see CPLR 2005), here, the plaintiff's attorney, in his affirmation, admitted that there was "no excuse, reasonable or otherwise." Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish that he had potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see Bollino v Hitzig, 34 AD3d 711). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the prior order granting Cyran's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Cyran.

n Tend Masoers Dist. Council Welfare Fund v Diamond Constr. & Maintenance, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 03815 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

In an action for leave to enter a renewal judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014, nonparty Deutsche Bank National Trust Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated July 22, 2010, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a renewal judgment of the same court dated January 11, 2010 on the ground that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the renewal judgment because Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was not joined as a necessary party.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"Persons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants" (CPLR 1001[a]). This statute "limit[s] the scope of indispensable parties to those cases and only those cases where the determination of the court will adversely affect the rights of nonparties" (Matter of Castaways Motel v Schuyler, 24 NY2d 120, 125; see Spector v Toys "R" Us, Inc., 12 AD3d 358, 359).
Here, the Supreme Court properly found that nonparty Deutsche Bank National Trust Company did not need to be joined in the instant action in order to accord complete relief to the parties, and that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was not inequitably affected by the renewal judgment.
In an action for leave to enter a renewal judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014, nonparty Deutsche Bank National Trust Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated July 22, 2010, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a renewal judgment of the same court dated January 11, 2010 on the ground that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the renewal judgment because Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was not joined as a necessary party.

s

CPLR § 317: Court extends one-year limitation

CPLR § 317 Defense by person to whom summons not personally delivered

Stern v Warren George, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 01829 (App. Div. 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer (see CPLR 317; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 142-143; Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725, 728; Reyes v DCH Mgt., Inc., 56 AD3d 644; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in extending the one-year limitation period set forth in CPLR 317 in light of the potentially meritorious defense asserted by the respondent, the short delay after the limitation period expired in moving to vacate the judgment, and the public policy of determining actions on the merits (see CPLR 2004; Girardo v 99-27 Realty, LLC, 62 AD3d 659, 660; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d 629, 629-630; Allen v Preston, 123 AD2d 303, 303-304; Levine v Berlin, 46 AD2d 902, 903).

CPLR R. 2106: can’t be a party

CPLR R. 2106 Affirmation of truth of statement by attorney, physician, osteopath or dentist

Morrison Cohen LLP v Fink, 2011 NY Slip Op 00779 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense. As a party to the action, although an attorney by profession, defendant was required to submit an affidavit in opposition to plaintiff's motion for a default judgment. His submission of an affirmation instead of an affidavit was improper, "and its contents [were correctly] disregarded by the Supreme Court, thereby rendering the opposing papers insufficient to defeat the plaintiff's motion" (Pisacreta v Minniti, 265 AD2d 540 [1999]). Defendant's papers were deficient for the additional reason that the affidavit of the postal service worker on which he relied to demonstrate the inadequacy of "nail and mail" service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) was notarized by defendant himself, a party to the action.

Defendant is not entitled to relief, in the alternative, under CPLR 317 since he has failed to demonstrate that he "did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend" (id.; see Majestic Clothing Inc. v East Coast Stor., LLC, 18 AD3d 516, 517 [2005]).

The bold is mine.

CPLR 317, 5015(a)(1)(3), and 3215(f)

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or ordersummons to the door

CPLR § 317 Defense by person to whom summons not personally delivered

CPLR § 3215 Default judgment

Jackson v Professional Transp. Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 00650 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The plaintiff correctly contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of the defendant Professional Transportation Corp. (hereinafter the defendant), inter alia, to vacate an order dated October 27, 2008, and the judgment entered December 10, 2009, upon the defendant's default. CPLR 317 allows a court to vacate a default where service has been made upon a defendant by means other than personal delivery and where the defendant "did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense" (CPLR 317). Here, by its own admission, the defendant received the summons and complaint well before the motion for a default judgment was made and in ample time to seek leave to serve a late answer. Accordingly, the defendant failed to establish that it did not receive the summons in time to defend within the meaning of the statute (see Gartner v Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc., 71 AD3d 631, 632; SFR Funding, Inc. v Studio Fifty Corp., 36 AD3d 604, 605; Majestic Clothing Inc. v East Coast Stor., LLC, 18 AD3d 516, 517-518; Fleetwood Park Corp. v Jerrick Waterproofing Co., 203 AD2d 238, 239; Essex Credit Corp. v Tarantini Assoc., 179 AD2d 973, [*2]974).

Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse under CPLR 5015(a)(1) for its pattern of willful default and neglect (see Campbell-Jarvis v Alves, 68 AD3d 701, 702; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569; Merwitz v Dental Care Sers., 155 AD2d 748, 750), and its unsubstantiated claims that the default was occasioned by the conduct of its insurance broker or its liability carrier are unavailing (see Gartner v Unified Windows, Siding & Doors, Inc., 71 AD3d at 632; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672; Majestic Clothing Inc. v East Coast Stor., LLC, 18 AD3d at 518). Although the question of whether the defendant asserted a potentially meritorious defense need not be reached in view of the foregoing (see Burnett v Renne, 32 AD3d 449,450), we note, in any event, that the defendant's submissions failed to proffer a potentially meritorious defense.

The defendant similarly failed to establish that the default judgment was procured through fraud or misrepresentation within the meaning of CPLR 5015(a)(3) (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 69-70). Likewise, the verified complaint satisfied the plaintiff's obligation to file proof of the facts constituting the claim with the court pursuant to CPLR 3215(f), and even if the verified complaint did not satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3215(f), the default judgment would not have been rendered a nullity (see Araujo v Aviles, 33 AD3d 830; Coulter v Town of Highlands, 26 AD3d 456, 457).
The bold is mine  I'll pull the cases cited in the last line some other time.  If I'm interested, you should be too.

 

 

Stuff I meant to post but didn’t feel like it at the time.

 

Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 2010 NY Slip Op 07878 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

The plaintiff failed to rebut the defendant's sworn statement that he never received a copy of the order entered July 1, 2004, which, inter alia, scheduled a conference for September 29, 2004. The assertion of the plaintiff's attorney that she personally served that order upon the then- pro se defendant was not supported by a proper affidavit of service or other proof of service (see Lambert v Schreiber, 69 AD3d 904). A written statement prepared by the plaintiff's attorney on August 4, 2004, was neither sworn to before a notary public nor subscribed and affirmed to be true under the penalties of perjury and, thus, did not constitute competent evidence of service (see CPLR 2106; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526). Without notice of the conference, the defendant's "default" was a nullity, as was the remedy imposed by the Supreme Court as a consequence (see CPLR 5015[a][4]; Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d 375, 376; Tragni v Tragni, 21 AD3d 1084, 1085; cf. Hwang v Tam, 72 AD3d 741, 742). In this situation, vacatur of the default is required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense is required (see Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d at 376; Kumer v Passafiume, 258 AD2d 625, 626). Consequently, the subsequent inquest, the judgment entered March 21, 2006, and the order dated July 16, 2007, were all nullities, and must be vacated. In addition, there was no competent proof that the plaintiff served the defendant with notice of the inquest, a copy of the judgment entered March 22, 2006, with notice of entry, or a copy of the order entered July 20, 2007, with notice of entry.

Rizzo v Kay, 2010 NY Slip Op 09493 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, it was not error for the trial court to allow testimony on the issue of whether the appellant abandoned treatment of the plaintiff before fully completing her dental work, and, in effect, to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at trial by submitting a claim of abandonment to the jury. "A trial court generally has broad discretion to deem the pleadings amended to conform to the evidence presented at the [trial], even absent a motion by a party, provided [that] there is no significant prejudice or surprise to the party opposing the amendment" (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Joseph, 35 AD3d 730, 731; see CPLR 3025[c]; A-1 Check Cashing Serv. v Goodman, 148 AD2d 482). Here, the appellant was not prejudiced or surprised by the admission of evidence on the issue of abandonment and the submission of this issue to the jury, since the issue was explored, and relevant evidence obtained, during discovery (see Alomia v New York City Tr. Auth., 292 AD2d 403, 406; Diaz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 289 AD2d 365, 366).

It was also proper for the trial court to dismiss the appellant's cross claim against the defendant Joseph Maniscalco. The plaintiff failed to present any expert evidence that Dr. Maniscalco departed from good and accepted standards of dental practice, and therefore agreed to withdraw her dental malpractice claim against Dr. Maniscalco at the close of her case. While the appellant opposed Dr. Maniscalco's motion to dismiss the cross claim against him upon the ground that there was a factual dispute as to whether Dr. Maniscalco was an independent contractor who could be held liable for his own acts of malpractice, the appellant's expert witness disclosure statement failed to identify any departures from good and accepted standards of dental practice which Dr. Maniscalco may have committed. Under these circumstances, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the appellant would be precluded from offering expert testimony as to whether Dr. Maniscalco committed any acts of dental malpractice (see CPLR 3101[d][1][i]; Lucian v Schwartz, 55 AD3d 687, 688; Parlante v Cavallero, 73 AD3d 1001; Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 28 AD3d 463, 464), and in concluding that absent such expert testimony, the appellant could not establish a prima facie case of dental malpractice against Dr. Maniscalco, and therefore could not prevail upon his cross claim (see Perricone-Bernovich v Gentle Dental, 60 AD3d 744, 745; Sohn v Sand, 180 AD2d 789, 790.

Comice v Justin's Rest., 2010 NY Slip Op 07884 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1003 for leave to amend the summons and complaint to add Andre Suite as a defendant. The statute of limitations expired and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the relation-back doctrine was applicable (see CPLR 203[f]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173). In order for claims asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date the claims were filed against an original defendant, the plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against that party as well (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d at 178; Arsell v Mass One LLC, 73 AD3d 668, 669; Boodoo v Albee Dental Care, 67 AD3d 717, 718). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that Suite knew or should have known that, but for a mistake as to the identity of the proper parties, this action would have been brought against him as well (see Boodoo v Albee Dental Care, 67 AD3d at 718; Marino v Westchester Med. Group, P.C., 50 AD3d 861; Yovane v White Plains Hosp. Ctr., 228 AD2d 436, 437; see also Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26, 34-35).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 1024 to name Andre Suite as a defendant in lieu of "John Doe." In order to employ the procedural mechanism made available by CPLR 1024, a plaintiff must show that he or she made timely efforts to identify the correct party before the statute of limitations expired (see Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d at 29-30; Harris v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Syosset, 16 AD3d 549, 550; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d 492, 492-493; Scoma v Doe, 2 AD3d 432, 433; Porter v Kingsbrook OB/GYN Assoc., 209 AD2d 497). Here, the plaintiff failed to make such a showing. 

Sanchez v Avuben Realty LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 08780 (App. Div., 1st 2010)

An application brought pursuant to CPLR 5015 to be relieved from a judgment or order entered on default requires a showing of a reasonable excuse and legal merit to the defense asserted (see Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt., 292 AD2d 5, 9 [2002]). While the failure to keep a current address with the Secretary of State is generally not a reasonable excuse for default under CPLR 5015(a)(1) (id. at 9-10), where a court finds that a defendant failed to "personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense," relief from a default may be permitted (CPLR 317; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 142 [1986]).

Here, notwithstanding the Secretary of State's maintenance of the wrong corporate address, the evidence of record demonstrates that defendant did receive notice of the summons in time to interpose a defense, and inexplicably failed to do so. It is undisputed that six months after the complaint's filing, counsel for defendant's insurer contacted plaintiff's counsel to discuss settlement, at which time he was informed of the then-pending motion for default judgment. The very fact that settlement options were discussed at this time evidences that defendant was aware of plaintiff's action. Moreover, vacatur of a default judgment is not warranted merely because the default was occasioned by lapses on the part of an insurance carrier (see Klein v Actors & Directors Lab, 95 AD2d 757 [1983], lv dismissed 60 NY2d 559 [1983];Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672 [2006]). The evidence of record also indicates that five months after filing of the summons and complaint, copies thereof were delivered to an undisputably valid address for defendant, as was notice of entry of the Supreme Court's March 26, 2007 order granting plaintiff's motion for default judgment and [*2]noticing an inquest as to damages. Still defendant took no action until approximately two-and-a-half years after the complaint's filing, when plaintiff attempted to collect on the Supreme Court's judgment.

Defendant failed to establish entitlement to vacatur of the default judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(3) due to an alleged fraud perpetrated by plaintiff in support of his complaint, as the affidavit it submitted in support of this claim was both conclusory and recounted hearsay.

Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 2010 NY Slip Op 09198 (Ct. App. 2010)

Under CPLR 3042 (d), a court may invoke the relief set forth in CPLR 3126 when a "party served with a demand for a bill of particulars willfully fails to provide particulars which the court finds ought to have been provided pursuant to this rule." CPLR 3126, in turn, governs discovery penalties and applies where a party "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed." The statute contains a list of nonexclusive sanctions and further permits courts to fashion orders "as are just." CPLR 3126 therefore broadly empowers a trial court to craft a conditional order — an order "that grants the motion and imposes the sanction 'unless' within a specified time the resisting party submits to the disclosure" (Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3126:10 ["The conditional order is in fact the most popular disposition under CPLR 3126"]; see also CPLR 3042 [d]).

The situation that developed in this case is, unfortunately, a scenario that we have seen before. In Fiore v Galang (64 NY2d 999 [1985], affg 105 AD2d 970 [3d Dept 1984]), a medical malpractice action, the trial court granted a 30-day conditional order of preclusion directing plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars on the defendant hospital. Following plaintiffs' lack of compliance with the order, the hospital moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The trial court denied the motion on the condition that plaintiffs serve a bill of particulars and pay $415 to the hospital's attorneys [FN3]. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the trial court erred in excusing the default without requiring plaintiff to offer both a reasonable excuse and an affidavit of merit. We affirmed, explaining that "absent an affidavit of merits it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant defendant Hospital's motion for summary judgment" (id. at 1000 [emphasis added]).

***

In reaching this conclusion, we reiterate that "[l]itigation cannot be conducted efficiently if deadlines are not taken seriously, and we make clear again, as we have several times before, that disregard of deadlines should not and will not be tolerated" (Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005]; see also Wilson v Galicia Contr. & Restoration Corp., 10 NY3d 827, 830 [2008]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2004]; Brill, 2 NY3d at 652-653; Kihl, 94 NY2d at 123).

 

 

 

On Vacatur CPLR R. 5015 & § 317

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or ordersummons to the door

CPLR § 317 Defense by person to whom summons not personally delivered

C&H Import & Export, Inc. v MNA Global, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 09205 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

The plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to a default judgment against the appellants, MNA Global, Inc. (hereinafter MNA), and Menashe Amitay, an officer of MNA, by submitting proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting its claim, and proof of the appellants' defaults in answering or appearing (see CPLR 3215[f]; Mercury Cas. Co. v Surgical Ctr. at Milburn, LLC, 65 AD3d 1102). In opposition to the plaintiff's motion, the appellants alleged that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them (see CPLR 5015[a][4]). The process server's affidavits of service constituted prima facie evidence of proper service upon Amitay pursuant to CPLR 308(2) and upon MNA pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1) (see Beneficial Homeowner Serv. Corp. v Girault, 60 AD3d 984;McIntyre v Emanuel Church of God In Christ, Inc., 37 AD3d 562). The unsubstantiated denials by Amitay that neither he nor MNA were served with the summons and complaint were insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service (see Pezolano v Incorporated City of Glen Cove, 71 AD3d 970; Sturino v Nino Tripicchio & Son Landscaping, 65 AD3d 1327; Sime v Ludhar, 37 AD3d 817). Notably, Amitay failed to submit any affidavit by the person upon whom process was allegedly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) denying receipt of the summons and complaint (see Roberts v Anka, 45 AD3d 752, 754; Foster v Jordan, 269 AD2d 152; cf. Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34 AD3d 536, 538). Furthermore, Amitay did not deny that the individual described in the affidavit with respect to service of MNA was a managing agent of MNA (see SFR Funding, Inc. v Studio Fifty Corp., 36 AD3d 604; Ralph DiMaio Woodworking Co. v Ameribuild Constr. Mgt., 300 AD2d 558). The appellants offered no other excuse for their defaults in answering the complaint (see CPLR 5015[a][1]). [*2]

Even if that branch of the appellants' cross motion which sought, in effect, to vacate their default was treated as one made pursuant to CPLR 317 (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143; Irwin Mtge. Corp. v Devis, 72 AD3d 743; Mann-Tell Realty Corp. v Cappadora Realty Corp., 184 AD2d 497), the appellants failed to demonstrate that they did not receive notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend the action (see Irwin Mtge. Corp. v Devis, 72 AD3d 743; Sturino v Nino Tripicchio & Son Landscaping, 65 AD3d 1327). The plaintiff's evidence that a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed to Amitay's correct residence address created a presumption of proper mailing and of receipt (see Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943; Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC v Reisman, 55 AD3d 524). His mere denial of receipt, without more, did not rebut the presumption of proper mailing (see Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC v Reisman, 55 AD3d at 525; De La Barrera v Handler, 290 AD2d 476; Udell v Alcamo Supply & Contr. Corp., 275 AD2d 453).

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the appellants' cross motion which sought, in effect, an extension of time to serve a late answer pursuant to CPLR 3012(d), as they did not establish a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve an answer (see 599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v 799 Sterling Inc., 34 AD3d 726; Elite Limousine Plus v Allcity Ins. Co., 266 AD2d 259).