Basile v. Mulholland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Basile v. Mulholland

73 A.D.3d 597, 899 N.Y.S.2d 851

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 20, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 597 (Basile v. Mulholland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Basile v. Mulholland, 73 A.D.3d 597, 899 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 8, 2009, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants adduce no competent evidence to support their assertion that the individual defendant had no interest in the corporate defendants for a four-month period of time that happened to coincide with commencement of the action, relieving her of responsibility for answering the complaint, and otherwise fail to show a reasonable excuse for their default (CFLR 5015 [a] [1]). CFLR 3215 (g) (3) does not avail defendants, as the action is not one based on nonpayment of a contractual obligation. Nor does Limited Liability Company Law § 808 (a) avail defendants, as plaintiff LLC’s failure to obtain a certificate of authority to do business in New York before initiating the action is not a fatal jurisdictional defect and such certificate has since been obtained (cf. Tri-Terminal Corp. v CITC Indus., 78 AD2d 609 [1980]). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 8, 2009, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants adduce no competent evidence to support their assertion that the individual defendant had no interest in the corporate defendants for a four-month period of time that happened to coincide with commencement of the action, relieving her of responsibility for answering the complaint, and otherwise fail to show a reasonable excuse for their default (CFLR 5015 [a] [1]). CFLR 3215 (g) (3) does not avail defendants, as the action is not one based on nonpayment of a contractual obligation. Nor does Limited Liability Company Law § 808 (a) avail defendants, as plaintiff LLC’s failure to obtain a certificate of authority to do business in New York before initiating the action is not a fatal jurisdictional defect and such certificate has since been obtained (cf. Tri-Terminal Corp. v CITC Indus., 78 AD2d 609 [1980]). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 597, 899 N.Y.S.2d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basile-v-mulholland-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack