Category: CPLR R. 5015

You can never have enough of these decisions handy.

CPLR R. 5015

CPLR R. 3215

Maida v Lessing's Rest. Servs., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 00490 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

To vacate the order entered upon its default in opposing the motion for leave to enter a default judgment, the defendant Lessing's Restaurant Services, Inc. (hereinafter the appellant), was required to demonstrate, inter alia, a reasonable excuse for its default in appearing or answering the complaint and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Abdul v Hirschfield, 71 AD3d 707; Bekker v Fleischman, 35 AD3d 334; Epps v LaSalle Bus, 271 AD2d 400). In support of its motion, which was not made until nine months after the order granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment, the appellant did not offer a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear or answer the complaint (see Gartner v Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc., 71 AD3d 631, 632; Kramer v Oil Servs., Inc., 65 AD3d 523, 524; Leifer v Pilgreen Corp., 62 AD3d 759, 760; Martinez v D'Alessandro Custom Bldrs. & Demolition, Inc., 52 AD3d 786, 787; Segovia v Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d 1143, 1144). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider whether the appellant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Abdul v Hirschfield, 71 AD3d at 709; Segovia v Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d at 1144; American Shoring, Inc. v D.C.A. Constr., Ltd., 15 AD3d 431). In addition, contrary to the appellant's contention, the plaintiff's submissions in support of her motion for leave to enter a default judgment were sufficient. The verified complaint and the plaintiff's affidavit set forth sufficient facts to enable the Supreme Court to determine that the plaintiff alleged a viable cause of action (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71; Neuman v Zurich N. Am., 36 AD3d 601, 602). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to vacate the order dated November 24, 2008.

CPLR R.3211(a)(8)

R. Scott Miterko v Peaslee, 2011 NY Slip Op 00492 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. In opposition to the appellant's cross motion asserting that service of process pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1) was not properly effected, the plaintiffs established that valid service was made pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306(b)(1) (see Perkins v 686 Halsey Food Corp., 36 AD3d 881).

However, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment. To establish their entitlement to a default judgment, the plaintiffs were required to submit proof of service of the summons and the complaint, of the facts constituting the claim, and of the default (see CPLR 3215[f]; Levine v Forgotson's Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 [*2]AD3d 552, 553; 599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v 799 Sterling Inc., 34 AD3d 726). The plaintiffs' initial moving papers for leave to enter a default judgment were predicated solely upon their assertion of proper personal service pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1). They established, prima facie, their entitlement to a default judgment by submitting an affidavit of service attesting that the summons and complaint were delivered to a managing agent of the appellant, a copy of the verified complaint, and an attorney affirmation attesting to the appellant's default in answering the complaint (see CPLR 311[a][1]; Matone v Sycamore Realty Corp., 50 AD3d 978; McIntyre v Emanuel Church of God In Christ, Inc., 37 AD3d 562; Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343, 343-344). In opposition, the appellant rebutted these allegations and raised issues of fact by submitting an affidavit from its president stating that the person upon whom service allegedly was made was not employed by the appellant, nor authorized to accept service of process on behalf of the appellant. The affidavit of the plaintiffs' process server submitted in reply to this opposition raised an additional issue of fact as to whether the recipient, if not a managing agent, was cloaked with an apparent authority to accept service on the appellant's behalf (see generally Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265, 271-273; McDonald v Ames Supply Co., 22 NY2d 111, 115-116; Aguilera v Pistilli Constr. & Dev. Corp., 63 AD3d 765, 766-767; Seda v Armory Estates, 138 AD2d 362, 363-364). Accordingly, a hearing is necessary to determine the issue of whether proper personal service was effected pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1), solely for the purpose of determining the plaintiffs' entitlement to a default judgment (see McIntyre v Emanuel Church of God In Christ, Inc., 37 AD3d at 562-563; Garcia v Munseob, 33 AD3d 586; Mortgage Access Corp. v Webb, 11 AD3d 592, 593; Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d at 343-344; Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657, 659).

Since the plaintiffs' assertion that they were entitled to a default judgment based on proper service pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306(b)(1) was made in their reply papers supporting their motion, two days before the return date and the date of the order appealed from, and the appellant did not have an opportunity to respond, the Supreme Court should not have considered that claim in determining the motion (see Matter of Crawmer v Mills, 239 AD2d 844, 844-845; cf. Matter of Whittaker v New York City Bd. of Educ., 71 AD3d 776, 778; Valure v Century 21 Grand, 35 AD3d 591, 592).

The appellant's contention that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action insofar as asserted against it is raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court (see McLearn v Cowen & Co., 60 NY2d 686, 689; Viafax Corp. v Citicorp Leasing, Inc., 54 AD3d 846, 849; Resnick v Doukas, 261 AD2d 375, 376).

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order

O'Donnell v Frangakis, 2010 NY Slip Op 06622 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

A defendant seeking to vacate an order or judgment entered upon his or her default in appearing and answering the complaint must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for [his or her] delay in appearing and answering the complaint and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Gray v B.R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649, 650; Li Gang Ma v Hong Guang Hu, 54 AD3d 312; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672; Cooney v Cambridge Mgt. & Realty Corp., 35 AD3d 522). The defendant's excuses that her insurer denied and disclaimed coverage and that she could not initially afford an attorney were insufficient to excuse her lengthy delay in appearing (see Matter of Nieto, 70 AD3d 831; Toland v Young, 60 AD3d 754;Robinson v 1068 Flatbush Realty, Inc., 10 AD3d 716, 717; Rottenberg v Lerner, 232 AD2d 395). In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Toland v Young, 60 AD3d 754; Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519, 520; Segovia v Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d 1143, 1144). Accordingly, the defendant's motion should have been denied. 

The bold is mine.

If the insurer denied and disclaimed coverage, how will plaintiff get paid.  The Appellate DIvision cites to cases where the party claiming lack of funds failed to provide sufficient proof, so it isn't always a too bad so sad situation.  But what proof would the court need?  Tax returns?

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order

Doris v Lewis, 2010 NY Slip Op 06357 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The Supreme Court erred in requiring the defendant to post a bond. A court which renders a "judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just" (CPLR 5015[a]), including the imposition of a bond or undertaking (see Yadid, LLC v GCW Bell Corp., 48 [*2]AD3d 799, 800; Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 296 AD2d 474, 475; Testwell Craig Labs. v Charles Assoc., 264 AD2d 836; Harp v Tednick Corp., 256 AD2d 904, 905; F & K Supply v Balbec Corp., 182 AD2d 911). However, in the instant case, the Supreme Court did not issue an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant's default and did not render a default judgment. Thus, there was no judgment or order from which the defendant was seeking to be relieved.

It's pretty rare that you find a decision where the court requires a bond as a condition of vacatur.  Even with the facts as they are in this case, it's still an interesting decision.

CPLR R. 3211(a)(8)the court has not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant 

Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 2010 NY Slip Op 06225 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, inter alia, that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. "A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service" (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716). "Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing (see Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc., 117 AD2d 135, 139), no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits'" (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716, quoting Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369, 370). Here, since the defendants' affidavits amounted to no more than bare and conclusory denials of service which were insufficient to rebut the prima facie proof of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) and (2) created by the process server's affidavit, no hearing was required (see City of New York v Miller, 72 AD3d 726; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Schotter, 50 AD3d 983, 983; 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 50 AD3d 845, 846; Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369, 370).

By "defendant's sworn denial of receipt"  the Court does not mean that just anyone can deny receipt.  The person who was served has to do it or a person with sufficient knowledge. "I checked the file" is not sufficient.  But, like anything else, there are exceptions.

For some crazy reason, typepad decided to get rid of the justify button.  Posts will take longer because of this.

Katz v Marra, 2010 NY Slip Op 04957 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), "[t]he court which rendered a judgment or
order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just." This
statute sets forth certain grounds for vacatur, including excusable
default, newly-discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, and lack
of jurisdiction. As recognized by the Court of Appeals, the drafters of
CPLR 5015 did not envision that this statute would provide an exhaustive
list of the grounds for vacatur (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp.,
100 NY2d 62, 68). Instead, a court retains "its discretionary power
to vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests
of substantial justice'" (Goldman v Cotter, 10 AD3d 289, 293, quoting Woodson
v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d at 68; see Ladd v Stevenson, 112
NY 325, 332). However, "[a] court's inherent power to exercise control
over its judgment is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to
relieve a party from judgments taken through [fraud,] mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect" (Matter of McKenna v
County of Nassau Off. of County Attorney, 61 NY2d 739, 742 [internal
quotation marks omitted]; see Long Is. Light Co. v Century Indem. Co., 52
AD3d 383, 384; Quinn v Guerra, 26 AD3d 872, 873).

***

Here, the defendant failed to establish grounds warranting relief under
CPLR 5015(a)(1)

***

In our view, this case does not warrant the invocation of a court's
inherent power to vacate its orders and judgment in the interest of
substantial justice. Notwithstanding the dissent's characterization,
there is nothing unique or unusual about this case. This Court has
previously found that claims of financial distress are not sufficient to
justify the exercise of the court's inherent discretionary power to
vacate its own judgment in the interests of substantial justice (see Matter of Dayton Towers Corp. v Gethers, 24
AD3d 663, 664). Simply stated, this is not an appropriate case in
which to exercise the broad equity power of a court to vacate its own
orders and judgment.
We note that the cases cited by the dissent for the proposition
that vacatur is warranted in the interest of substantial justice are
inapposite and/or distinguishable. For instance, in Ruben v American
and Foreign Ins. Co. (185 AD2d 63), the court vacated a judgment,
upon the "joint" motion and consent of the parties. Other cases relied
upon by the dissent, such as Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Employment
Commercial Union Ins. Co. (62 AD2d 123) and Soggs v Crocco (247
AD2d 887), did not involve a motion to vacate an order or judgment
entered upon default.

In May of 2009, I posted a case where the Appellate Division, Third Department, found facts sufficient to warrant vacatur in the interest of justice: Kostun
v Gower, 61 AD3d 1307 (App. Div., 3rd, 2009).  That case was also interesting because of FN 1.  In June of 2009, I posted a Appellate Division, First Department, case, where the court found sufficient facts: Diane
v Ricale Taxi, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 05680 (App. Div.,
1st, 2009).