TD Bank, N.A. v. Koumba Textile Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 30516(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedFebruary 15, 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 30516(U) (TD Bank, N.A. v. Koumba Textile Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
TD Bank, N.A. v. Koumba Textile Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 30516(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

TD Bank, N.A. v Koumba Textile Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 30516(U) February 15, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 652341/2023 Judge: Louis L. Nock Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 652341/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LOUIS L. NOCK PART 38M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 652341/2023 TD BANK, N.A., MOTION DATE 11/02/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- KOUMBA TEXTILE INC. and OUSMANE SAMPIL, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 were read on this motion for DEFAULT JUDGMENT .

LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C.

Upon the foregoing documents, the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is granted,

without opposition, and for the reasons set forth in the motion papers, and per the following

memorandum decision.

Background

On July 5, 2019, plaintiff TD Bank, N.A., extended a commercial line of credit for

$50,500 (the “Loan”) to defendant Koumba Textile Inc. (“Borrower”), as evidenced by a

“Promissory Note” (the “Note”) and “Business Loan Agreement” (the “Loan Agreement”) (Hall-

Mitchell aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 6, ¶¶ 6–8). The Loan was secured by a certain executed

“Commercial Guaranty,” whereby defendant Ousmane Sampil (“Guarantor”) absolutely and

unconditionally guaranteed payment of all amounts due on the Loan (the “Guaranty”) owed by

Borrower to plaintiff (id., ¶¶ 18–21). To further secure payment of the Loan, Borrower executed

a certain “Commercial Security Agreement,” whereby Borrower granted plaintiff a security

interest in all of Borrower’s assets as defined in the Commercial Security Agreement (the 652341/2023 TD BANK, N.A. vs. KOUMBA TEXTILE INC. ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 001

1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 652341/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

“Collateral”) (the Note, Loan Agreement, Commercial Guaranty, Commercial Security

Agreement, and all related loan documents are collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Loan

Documents”), which security interest was perfected by a UCC-1 Financing Statement (id., ¶¶

22–23).

As more fully set forth in the affidavit of Kimberly Hall-Mitchell, plaintiff’s assistant

vice president, Borrower defaulted on the Loan by failing to make monthly payments, as

required under the Loan Documents (the “Stated Default”), starting with the November 5, 2022,

payment and each monthly payment thereafter (id., ¶ 26). Despite plaintiff’s declaration of the

Stated Default, acceleration of the Loan, and demands for immediate payment of all amounts due

on the Loan on February 17, 2023, and again on April 13, 2023, Borrower and Guarantor remain

in default under the terms of the Loan Documents (id., ¶¶ 27–28). As of August 10, 2023, the

total amount of plaintiff’s alleged damages against both defendants is $56,715.42 (id., ¶ 29).

Plaintiff commenced this action on May 15, 2023 (summons and complaint, NYSCEF

Doc. No. 1). Affidavits of service, regular on their faces, attest to service on Borrower by

service on the Secretary of State on May 26, 2023, pursuant to Business Corporations Law §

306(b) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3), and on Guarantor by delivery and mailing to his dwelling place

pursuant to CPLR 308(2), with service completed on May 30, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). An

affirmation of additional service filed in support of the motion attests to the requisite additional

mailing pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(4)(i) and 3215(g)(3)(i) on September 19, 2023, more than

twenty days in advance of entry of judgment (Espinal aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 25, ¶¶ 2–3).

Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint has expired, and they have neither appeared nor

answered the complaint. There is no opposition to the motion.

652341/2023 TD BANK, N.A. vs. KOUMBA TEXTILE INC. ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 001

2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 652341/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

Standard of Review

A plaintiff that seeks entry of a default judgment for a defendant’s failure to answer must

submit proof of service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant, proof of the facts

constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant’s default (CPLR 3215[f]). “The standard of

proof is not stringent, amounting only to some firsthand confirmation of the facts” (Feffer v

Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]). “[D]efaulters are deemed to have admitted all

factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them”

(Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]). Nevertheless, “CPLR 3215 does

not contemplate that default judgments are to be rubber-stamped once jurisdiction and a failure

to appear have been shown. Some proof of liability is also required to satisfy the court as to the

prima facie validity of the uncontested cause of action” (Guzetti v City of N.Y., 32 AD3d 234,

235 [1st Dept 2006] [internal quotations and citations omitted]).

Discussion

Plaintiff has satisfied its burden on the motion by submission of the affidavits of service

on defendants (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 2, 3), the affirmation of additional mailing on defendants

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 25, ¶¶ 2–3), the affirmation of plaintiff’s counsel Angel F. Espinal, Esq.

attesting to defendants’ default (Espinal aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 14, ¶¶ 4–11), and Hall-

Mitchell’s affidavit, which attests to the facts alleged in the complaint and the amount of

plaintiff’s damages (Hall-Mitchell aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 6, ¶¶ 6–8). Defendants have never

appeared in the action, nor did they submit any opposition to the motion. Plaintiff is, therefore,

entitled to entry of a default judgment against defendants.

The Note, Loan Agreement, and Guaranty all contain attorney fee provisions (see, Note

at 1; Loan Agreement at 4; Guaranty at 3). Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted an Affirmation of

652341/2023 TD BANK, N.A. vs. KOUMBA TEXTILE INC. ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 001

3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 652341/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

Legal Fees, Costs and Expenses (NYSCEF Doc. No. 19) which sets forth what, based on this

court’s application of the applicable standards (see, In re Freeman’s Estate, 34 NY2d 1 [1974]),

constitutes reasonably incurred legal fees in this matter, amounting to $2,208.78.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is granted; and, accordingly,

it is

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff

and against both defendants, jointly and severally, in the principal amount of $49,898.80, with

interest on said principal amount at the statutory rate from February 27, 2023,1 through the date

of entry of judgment, as calculated by the Clerk, and continuing to accrue thereafter through the

date of satisfaction of judgment, and in the additional sum of $2,208.78 as plaintiff’s reasonable

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

Related

Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp.
790 N.E.2d 1156 (New York Court of Appeals, 2003)
In re Accounting of Lincoln Rochester Trust Co.
311 N.E.2d 480 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
Guzetti v. City of New York
32 A.D.3d 234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Feffer v. Malpeso
210 A.D.2d 60 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 30516(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/td-bank-na-v-koumba-textile-inc-nysupctnewyork-2024.