Lopez v. Trucking & Stratford, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lopez v. Trucking & Stratford, Inc.

299 A.D.2d 187, 749 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10726

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 187 (Lopez v. Trucking & Stratford, Inc.) 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

Lopez v. Trucking & Stratford, Inc., 299 A.D.2d 187, 749 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell on defendant’s premises, denied defendant’s motion to vacate an order granting a default judgment against it on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s conclusory assertions, made in its attorney’s affirmation, that there are obvious issues of fact relating to notice and comparative negligence, without any further specification whatsoever, fail to show a meritorious defense, and therefore defendant is not entitled to relief under either CPLR 317 or 5015 (see Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 189, 190; see also Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Zucker, 225 AD2d 308, 309; Widgren v 313 E. 9th Assoc., 295 AD2d 146).

Plaintiff’s affidavit of mailing of an additional summons and complaint to defendant’s last known address, as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i), does not indicate, as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (ii), that the additional service was accompanied by a notice to defendant that service had been made on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 (b). This defect, however, does not warrant vacating the default judgment absent a showing of a meritorious defense (cf. Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt., 292 AD2d 5, 10). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell on defendant’s premises, denied defendant’s motion to vacate an order granting a default judgment against it on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s conclusory assertions, made in its attorney’s affirmation, that there are obvious issues of fact relating to notice and comparative negligence, without any further specification whatsoever, fail to show a meritorious defense, and therefore defendant is not entitled to relief under either CPLR 317 or 5015 (see Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 189, 190; see also Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Zucker, 225 AD2d 308, 309; Widgren v 313 E. 9th Assoc., 295 AD2d 146).

Plaintiff’s affidavit of mailing of an additional summons and complaint to defendant’s last known address, as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i), does not indicate, as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (ii), that the additional service was accompanied by a notice to defendant that service had been made on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 (b). This defect, however, does not warrant vacating the default judgment absent a showing of a meritorious defense (cf. Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt., 292 AD2d 5, 10). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 187, 749 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-trucking-stratford-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack