From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. 536 East 5th Street Equities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2003
304 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-05324

Submitted March 19, 2003.

April 14, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 1, 2002, which granted the defendant's motion to vacate a judgment of the same court (Silverman, J.H.O.), entered December 12, 2001, upon its failure to appear or answer.

Huttner, Mingino Budashewitz, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for appellants.

Sperber, Denenburg Kahan, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Steven Sperber and Jacqueline Handel-Harbour of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer. Pursuant to CPLR 317, relief from a default may be obtained upon a showing that a defendant did not receive actual notice of the summons in time to defend, and has a meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 142; Samet v. Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 A.D.2d 404; Kavourias v. Big Six Pharmacy, 262 A.D.2d 456). Here, the plaintiffs effected service by serving a copy of the summons and complaint upon the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306. The defendant's address on file with the Secretary of State was an old address, and the defendant's president denied ever receiving a copy of the summons and complaint. In addition, the defendant's moving papers sufficiently alleged the existence of a meritorious defense. Thus, pursuant to CPLR 317, the defendant was entitled to vacatur of the judgment entered upon its default (see Samet v. Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., supra).

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ford v. 536 East 5th Street Equities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2003
304 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Ford v. 536 East 5th Street Equities, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN FORD, ET AL., appellants, v. 536 EAST 5TH STREET EQUITIES, INC.…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 473

Citing Cases

Tselikman v. Marvin Court

CPLR 317 permits a defendant who has been "served with a summons other than by personal delivery" to defend…

Miceli v. Fifty Broad St., Inc.

However, failure to update address alone does not constitute egregious behavior. Ford v. 536 East 5th Street…