Opinion
13116N Index No. 162629/14 Case No. 2020-02762
02-11-2021
GREEN 333 CORP., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. RNL LIFE SCIENCE, INC., Defendant–Respondent.
Hollis Laidlaw & Simon P.C., Mount Kisco (David Simon of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Jeffrey F. Cohen, Bronx (Jeffrey F. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
Hollis Laidlaw & Simon P.C., Mount Kisco (David Simon of counsel), for appellant.
The Law Office of Jeffrey F. Cohen, Bronx (Jeffrey F. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Kapnick, Singh, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn, III, J.), entered December 5, 2019, which granted defendant RNL Life Science's (RNL) motion to vacate the default judgment and dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
"If the defaulting defendant asserts that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him or her, the defendant should seek dismissal of the action under CPLR 5015(a)(4)" ( Caba v. Rai, 63 A.D.3d 578, 580, 882 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Absent proper service, a default judgment may be vacated at any time (see Roseboro v. Roseboro, 131 A.D.2d 557, 516 N.Y.S.2d 485 [2d Dept. 1987] ), as it is void (see McMullen v. Arnone, 79 A.D.2d 496, 499, 437 N.Y.S.2d 373 [2d Dept. 1981] ).
Plaintiff has the burden of proving satisfaction of statutory and due process prerequisites (see Stewart v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 81 N.Y.2d 203, 207, 597 N.Y.S.2d 612, 613 N.E.2d 518 [1993] ). By virtue of the return of service, address unknown, the unsigned return receipt, and the absence of a certificate of compliance that process was served pursuant to Business Corporation Law (BCL) § 307, plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with the strict requirements of BCL 307 (see Flannery v. General Motors Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 771, 773, 631 N.Y.S.2d 135, 655 N.E.2d 176 [1995] ; Flick v. Stewart–Warner Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 50, 57, 556 N.Y.S.2d 510, 555 N.E.2d 907 [1990] ; VanNorden v. Mann Edge Tool Co., 77 A.D.3d 1157, 1159, 910 N.Y.S.2d 189 [3d Dept. 2010] ). Furthermore, "notice received by means other than those authorized by statute cannot serve to bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court" ( Lansdowne Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Binladen Telecommunications Co., Ltd., 95 A.D.2d 711, 712, 463 N.Y.S.2d 826 [1st Dept. 1983] [internal quotation marks omitted]).