From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schilling v. Maren Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 4, 2003
302 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-04104

Argued January 3, 2003.

February 4, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants, Maren Enterprises, Inc., and Steven L. Bidnick, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), entered April 11, 2002, as granted the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Maren Enterprises, Inc., upon its default in answering.

Stuart R. Berg, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for appellants.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal by the defendant Steven L. Bidnick is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by the defendant Maren Enterprises, Inc., on the law, and the motion is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.

To obtain a default judgment against a corporation which has been served with process pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306, a plaintiff must mail an additional copy of the summons and complaint to the corporation "at its last known address at least twenty days before the entry of judgment" (CPLR 3215[g][4][i]). Furthermore, the plaintiff's application for a default judgment must be accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the satisfaction of this additional mailing requirement (see CPLR 3215[g][4][i]). Since the plaintiffs failed to submit any proof of their compliance with CPLR 3215(g)(4)(i), their application for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Maren Enterprises, Inc., was defective, and should not have been granted (see Ocuto Blacktop Paving Co. v. Trataros Const., 277 A.D.2d 919; Rafa Enters. v. Pigand Mgt. Corp., 184 A.D.2d 329).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schilling v. Maren Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 4, 2003
302 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Schilling v. Maren Enterprises, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL E. SCHILLING, ET AL., respondents, v. MAREN ENTERPRISES, INC., ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 4, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
754 N.Y.S.2d 564

Citing Cases

Williamson v. Franklin Plaza Apartments, Inc.

In a recent case, it was determined that, since plaintiffs failed to submit proof of their compliance with…

Williams v. McKoy

To obtain a default judgment against a corporation which has been served with process under Business…