Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp.

2025 NY Slip Op 30944(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedMarch 22, 2025
DocketIndex No. 652051/2020
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 30944(U) (Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 30944(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 30944(U) March 22, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 652051/2020 Judge: Andrea Masley Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/24/2025 09: 19 AM] INDEX NO. 652051/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

BANGLADESH BANK, INDEX NO. 652051/2020

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE - V - MOTION SEQ. NO. 025 RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, MAIA SANTOS DEGUITO, ANGELA RUTH TORRES, LORENZO V. TAN, RAUL VICTOR B. TAN, ISMAEL S. DECISION+ ORDER ON REYES, BRIGITTE R. CAPINA, NESTOR 0. PINEDA, MOTION ROMUALDO S. AGARRADO, PHILREM SERVICE CORP., SALUD BAUTISTA, MICHAEL BAUTISTA, CENTURYTEX TRADING, WILLIAM SO GO, EASTERN HAWAII LEISURE COMPANY, LTD., KAM SIN WONG, WEIKANG XU, DING ZHIZE, GAO SHUHUA, and JOHN DOES,

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

HON. ANDREA MASLEY:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 025) 484,485,486, 487, 488,489,490,491,492,493,494,495,496 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - DEFAULT

In motion sequence number 025, plaintiff Bangladesh Bank (Bank) moves

pursuant to CPLR 3215 for a default judgment against defendants Philrem Service

Corp. (Philrem), Michael Bautista, Salud Bautista, Maia Santos Deguito, and Angela

Ruth Torres (collectively, defaulting defendants) based on their failure to answer the

complaint.

Discussion

"On a motion for a default judgment under CPLR 3215 based upon a failure to answer the complaint, a plaintiff demonstrates entitlement to a default judgment against a defendant by submitting: (1) proof of service of the summons and complaint; (2) proof of the facts constituting its claim; and (3) proof of the defendant's default in answering or appearing." (Medina v Sheng Hui Realty LLC, 2018 NY Misc LEXIS 1789, *6-7, 2018 WL 2136441, *6-7 [Sup Ct, NY County 2018] [citations omitted].) 652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 025

1 of 6 [* 1] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/24/2025 09: 19 AM] INDEX NO. 652051/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2025

Michael Bautista, Deguito, and Philrem

Michael Bautista, Deguito, and Philrem were served in accordance with the

Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in

Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 UST 361, TIAS No. 6638 (1969) (Hague Convention)

through their counsel in the Republic of the Philippines (the Philippines). (NYSCEF

362, proof of service at 10-11/14 [service on Michael Bautista on August 2, 2023];

NYSCEF 363, proof of service at 10-11/13 [service on Philrem on August 2, 2023];

NYSCEF 375, proof of service at 10-11/15 [service on Deguito on August 3, 2023].)

The completed certificates of service filed by the Bank constitute "prima facie evidence

that the Central Authority's service on [these] foreign defendants was made in

compliance with the convention." (Unite National Retirement Fund v Ariela, Inc., 643 F

Supp 2d 328, 334 [SD NY 2008] [citation omitted].) As to Michael Bautista and Deguito,

however, the Bank failed to file affidavits of nonmilitary service. (See 50 USC§ 3931;

Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v 21st Century Pharm., 158 AD3d 450,451 [1st Dept 2018]

["Plaintiff established its entitlement to a default judgment against the defaulting

defendants ... except for defendant Ania Pierriseme, for whom no affidavit of nonmilitary

service appears in the record" (citations omitted)].)

Further, the court notes that

"[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed." (CPLR 3215 [c].)

"The language of CPLR 3215 (c) is not discretionary, and a claim for which a default judgment is not sought within the requisite one-year period will be deemed abandoned .... Notwithstanding, a claim will not be deemed abandoned if the party seeking a default judgment provides sufficient cause as to why the 652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 025

2 of 6 [* 2] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/24/2025 09: 19 AM] INDEX NO. 652051/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2025

complaint should not be dismissed." (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Martinez, 181 AD3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2020] [citation omitted].)

Michael Bautista and Philrem defaulted on September 2, 2023, by not answering

the complaint within 30 days of service. ( See CPLR 3012 [c]; CPLR 313; NYSCEF 487,

Loffler1 aff ,i 14.) Similarly, Deguito defaulted on September 3, 2023. (See CPLR 3012

[c]; CPLR 313; NYSCEF 487, Loffler aff ,I 14.) This motion was filed on October 16,

2024, more than a year following the defaults. ( See NYSCEF 484, Notice of Motion.)

Accordingly, on its face, this motion is untimely as against Michael Bautista, Deguito,

and Philrem. The Bank may supplement its motion to clarify whether the late filing of

this default motion against Michael Bautista, Deguito, and Philrem is excusable.

Salud Bautista and Torres

The court next determines whether the remaining defaulting defendants - Salud

Bautista and Torres - were properly served. Although the Bank maintains that Salud

Bautista was served in accordance with the Hague Convention, the certificate of service

states that service on him was not made. (NYSCEF 364, proof of service at 10/10.)

Prior to this default motion, the Bank moved to extend its time to serve and for

alternative service. This court granted the application and extended the Bank's time to

serve until October 6, 2023, authorizing alternative service "through (i) [defendants']

attorneys in pending criminal actions in the Philippines if counsel agree to accept

service; (ii) or by local publications in the Philippines if counsel refuses; and (iii) by e-

mail, Facebook, Linkedln, Twitter, and/or other similar social media communication

platform if known." (NYSCEF 351, July 18, 2023 Order at 2 [mot. seq. no. 020].)

1 Jesse Ryan Loffler is the Bank's counsel. (NYSCEF 487, Loffler aff ,i 1.) 652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 025

3 of 6 [* 3] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/24/2025 09: 19 AM] INDEX NO. 652051/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 531 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2025

The Bank's counsel avers that it attempted service through Salud Bautista and

Torres's counsel in the Philippines, but none agreed to accept. (NYSCEF 487, Loffler

aff ,T 5.) The Bank submits proof of service by publication in English in two newspapers

- Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 19, 26, 31, and September 8, 2023 (NYSCEF 489,

Mendoza 2 aff), and Manila Bulletin on August 10, 17, 24, and 31, 2023. (NYSCEF 490,

Bulaong 3 aff.)

It is mandated that "[t]he first publication of the summons shall be made within

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

UNITE NATIONAL RETIREMENT FUND v. Ariela, Inc.
643 F. Supp. 2d 328 (S.D. New York, 2008)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Martinez
2020 NY Slip Op 1693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Feinstein v. Bergner
397 N.E.2d 1161 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
In re Kaila B.
64 A.D.3d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 30944(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bangladesh-bank-v-rizal-commercial-banking-corp-nysupctnewyork-2025.