Cadle Co. v. Ayala

47 A.D.3d 919, 850 N.Y.S.2d 563
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 919 (Cadle Co. v. Ayala) 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
Cadle Co. v. Ayala, 47 A.D.3d 919, 850 N.Y.S.2d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In an action to enforce a foreign judgment entered upon default, brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated January 8, 2007, which denied its unopposed motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[920]*920Contrary to the Supreme Court’s reasoning, there is no procedural requirement under CPLR 3213 that the plaintiff affirmatively plead and prove facts sufficient to establish long-arm jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant (see CPLR 302). Rather, lack of long-arm jurisdiction must be raised by the defendant in opposition to the motion (see Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd. v Lee, 41 AD3d 183 [2007]; cf. Fishman v Pocono Ski Rental, 82 AD2d 906, 907 [1981]).

Nevertheless, as the proponent of this unopposed motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the plaintiff still bore the burden of establishing, inter alia, that the defendant was properly served with the motion (see CPLR 3213). Under the unusual circumstances presented, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet that burden, as, among other things, the affidavit of service, on its face, raises issues of fact as to the identity of the person served. Thus, the Supreme Court reached the correct result by denying the motion, and upon denial, the plaintiff’s moving papers “shall be deemed the complaint” (CPLR 3213). Our decision is not intended to preclude the plaintiff from moving, if it be so advised, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant in this action, upon proper proof pursuant to CPLR 3215 (cf. Araujo v Aviles, 33 AD3d 830 [2006]). Prudenti, EJ., Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC v. 500 Metro. Owner LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 30720(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms
2025 NY Slip Op 04541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v. Puresafe Water Systems, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 5259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Carrasco v. Cruz
139 A.D.3d 1052 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Mejia-Haffner v. Killington, Ltd.
119 A.D.3d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Mister Money Israel, Ltd. v. Leibowitz
100 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 A.D.3d 919, 850 N.Y.S.2d 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadle-co-v-ayala-nyappdiv-2008.