Volt Viewtech, Inc. v. Bomzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Volt Viewtech, Inc. v. Bomzer

41 A.D.3d 326, 837 N.Y.S.2d 566

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

DecidedJune 26, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 326 (Volt Viewtech, Inc. v. Bomzer) 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

Volt Viewtech, Inc. v. Bomzer, 41 A.D.3d 326, 837 N.Y.S.2d 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about February 9, 2007, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate their default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The referee’s determination, based largely on credibility (see Ross v Garcia, 19 AD3d 261 [2005]), that substituted service had been made on the individual defendant was properly upheld. While there was no basis in the record to conclude that the corporate defendant had deliberately attempted to avoid notice of this action by failing to keep current with the Secretaiy of State its agent’s address for service of process (see Raiola v 1944 Holding, 1 AD3d 296 [2003]; Reid v Delsener Enters., 84 AD2d 712 [1981], appeal dismissed 55 NY2d 1037 [1982]), and no record evidence of precisely when the law firm initially designated as its agent ceased operating, so that the duration of the corporate defendant’s failure to keep its records updated cannot be determined, the corporate defendant’s principal and [327]*327sole shareholder was served with the summons and complaint clearly seeking to subject it to liability and it was therefore aware of the action in time to defend (see J & S Constr. of NY, Inc. v 321 Bowery LLC, 39 AD3d 391 [2007]).

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Buckley, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about February 9, 2007, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate their default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The referee’s determination, based largely on credibility (see Ross v Garcia, 19 AD3d 261 [2005]), that substituted service had been made on the individual defendant was properly upheld. While there was no basis in the record to conclude that the corporate defendant had deliberately attempted to avoid notice of this action by failing to keep current with the Secretaiy of State its agent’s address for service of process (see Raiola v 1944 Holding, 1 AD3d 296 [2003]; Reid v Delsener Enters., 84 AD2d 712 [1981], appeal dismissed 55 NY2d 1037 [1982]), and no record evidence of precisely when the law firm initially designated as its agent ceased operating, so that the duration of the corporate defendant’s failure to keep its records updated cannot be determined, the corporate defendant’s principal and [327]*327sole shareholder was served with the summons and complaint clearly seeking to subject it to liability and it was therefore aware of the action in time to defend (see J & S Constr. of NY, Inc. v 321 Bowery LLC, 39 AD3d 391 [2007]).

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Buckley, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 326, 837 N.Y.S.2d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volt-viewtech-inc-v-bomzer-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack