237 E. 20 LLC v. SD Second Ave. Prop. LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 01117

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 154062/23 595644/24; Appeal No. 5951; Case No. 2024-06709
• Status: Published

Opinion

237 E. 20 LLC v SD Second Ave. Prop. LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01117)

237 E. 20 LLC v SD Second Ave. Prop. LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 01117

Decided on February 26, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 26, 2026
Before: Kennedy, J.P., Scarpulla, Kapnick, González, Rodriguez, JJ.

Index No. 154062/23 595644/24|Appeal No. 5951|Case No. 2024-06709|

[*1]237 East 20 LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

SD Second Avenue Property LLC, Defendant-Respondent, Silverback Acquisitions and Development LLC Doing Business as Silverback Development et al., Defendants.

SD Second Avenue Property LLC, Plaintiffs,

v

Trinity Builders of New York, Inc., Defendant.

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (Brian J. Markowitz of counsel), for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendant Silverback Acquisitions and Development LLC d/b/a Silverback Development, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, finding that plaintiff did not establish that it provided Silverback with an additional service of the summons by first class mail at defendant's last known address at least 20 days before entry of judgment, as mandated by CPLR 3215(g)(4) (see Wonder Works Constr. Corp. v RCDolner, LLC, 44 AD3d 526, 526 [1st Dept 2007]; Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt., 292 AD2d 5, 7 [1st Dept 2002]; but see Gersham v Ahmad, 131 AD3d 1104, 1105 [2d Dept 2015]). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the fact that defendant is an LLC, as opposed to a corporation, does not render CPLR 3215(g)(4) inapplicable (see Crespo, 292 AD2d at 7). Public policy, and our case law dictates, that the added layer of notice provided by CPLR 3215(g)(4) applies equally to both corporations and LLCs.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: February 26, 2026