From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beverage Distributors v. Schenley Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 1989
155 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 21, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.).


Defendant Schenley, which is incorporated in Delaware and licensed to do business in New York, previously maintained its corporate headquarters on Seventh Avenue in Manhattan. This was the address given to the Secretary of State for the delivery of process. Schenley thereafter relocated its corporate offices to Dallas in 1984 and, while only certain of its offices remained at Seventh Avenue, it failed, through oversight, to amend the mailing address used by the Secretary of State.

Consequently, when this action was begun by the service of a summons and complaint through the Secretary of State, these documents were returned as undeliverable by the post office. Subsequently, plaintiff moved for and obtained a default judgment.

After Schenley learned of this action, it moved to vacate the default pursuant to CPLR 317 and 5015. The IAS court denied this motion.

While a portion of defendant's offices continued to remain in New York, it is clear that the main branches had been moved and that defendant did not receive actual notice of this action. Schenley, therefore, demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint. In addition, it submitted an affidavit from the chairman of its parent corporation which directly refuted the claims of plaintiff and thereby presented a meritorious defense to the action. Accordingly, the IAS court abused its discretion in not granting vacatur pursuant to either CPLR 317 or 5015 (a) (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138).

Since, however, the delay was occasioned by defendant's failure to keep its mailing address for service of process current, we have conditioned the grant of its motion to vacate upon the payment by it of $1,000 to the plaintiff.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Asch, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Beverage Distributors v. Schenley Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 1989
155 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Beverage Distributors v. Schenley Industries

Case Details

Full title:BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS OF NEVADA, INC., Respondent, v. SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 323

Citing Cases

Peacock v. Kalikow

In order to demonstrate a meritorious defense, a party must submit an affidavit from an individual with…

Fleetwood Park Corp. v. Jerrick Waterproofing

The plaintiff now appeals. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the defendant failed to…