Taylor v. Behavioral Solutions NY, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Behavioral Solutions NY, Inc.

2021 NY Slip Op 03394, 194 A.D.3d 662, 144 N.Y.S.3d 566

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

DecidedMay 27, 2021

DocketIndex No. 30177/18E Appeal No. 13932N Case No. 2020-04231

StatusPublished

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 03394 (Taylor v. Behavioral Solutions NY, 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

Taylor v. Behavioral Solutions NY, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03394, 194 A.D.3d 662, 144 N.Y.S.3d 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Taylor v Behavioral Solutions NY, Inc. (2021 NY Slip Op 03394)

Taylor v Behavioral Solutions NY, Inc.

2021 NY Slip Op 03394

Decided on May 27, 2021

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: May 27, 2021
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, Mendez, JJ.

Index No. 30177/18E Appeal No. 13932N Case No. 2020-04231

[*1]Jacqueline Taylor as Mother and Guardian of Terrell Smith, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Behavioral Solutions NY, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. John Doe, Defendant.

Michael G. O'Neill, New York, for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered January 3, 2020, which denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendant Behavioral Solutions NY, Inc., unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff was not required to give defendant notice of her motion for a default judgment. When defendant failed to answer or appear after plaintiff served the summons and complaint by serving process on the Secretary of State, plaintiff made an additional service of the summons and complaint by first-class mail with the appropriate service and notice pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(4). Plaintiff's failure to file the

affidavit of the notice/mailing required did not provide a basis for denying her motion, as she submitted sufficient proof establishing that she made the additional service (see Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt. , 292 AD2d 5, 9-10 [1st Dept 2002]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 27, 2021

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