Schilling v. Maren Enterprises, Inc.

302 A.D.2d 375, 754 N.Y.S.2d 564
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 375 (Schilling v. Maren Enterprises, 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
Schilling v. Maren Enterprises, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 375, 754 N.Y.S.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an ac[376]*376tion, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants, Maren Enterprises, Inc., and Steven L. Bidnick, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), entered April 11, 2002, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Maren Enterprises, Inc., upon its default in answering.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Steven L. Bidnick is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by the defendant Maren Enterprises, Inc., on the law, and the motion is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.

To obtain a default judgment against a corporation which has been served with process pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306, a plaintiff must mail an additional copy of the summons and complaint to the corporation “at its last known address at least twenty days before the entry of judgment” (CPLR 3215 [g] [4] [i]). Furthermore, the plaintiffs application for a default judgment must be accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the satisfaction of this additional mailing requirement (see CPLR 3215 [g] [4] [i]). Since the plaintiffs failed to submit any proof of their compliance with CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i), their application for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Maren Enterprises, Inc., was defective, and should not have been granted (see Ocuto Blacktop & Paving Co. v Trataros Constr., 277 AD2d 919; Rafa Enters. v Pigand Mgt. Corp., 184 AD2d 329). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cooper v. Ray Cooper Realty Inc. Profit Sharing Plan
2025 NY Slip Op 50005(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2025)
CTour Holiday LLC v. Citic Intl (USA) Travel Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 50976(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2024)
Burlington Ins. Co. v. Aisyrk Co., Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 6247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
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)
Bank of New York v. Willis
2017 NY Slip Op 3468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Bono v. DuBois
121 A.D.3d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Confidential Lending, LLC v. Nurse
120 A.D.3d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Balaguer v. 1854 Monroe Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp.
71 A.D.3d 407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Admiral Insurance v. Marriott International, Inc.
67 A.D.3d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
County of Westchester v. Silva
7 Misc. 3d 962 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
Bunch v. Dollar Budget, Inc.
12 A.D.3d 391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
302 A.D.2d 375, 754 N.Y.S.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schilling-v-maren-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2003.