K. Eubanks, Plaintiff(s), v. LOMBARDO CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM FIAT OF MANHATTAN ASHWAHL DOYLE GIGLIO (2026)

I. Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of the Motion(s):

The following papers read herein: Numbered

Motion Seq. #5

Defendants "Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat of Manhattan," Dennis, Lombardo, Doyle and Giglio's Notice of Motion, Affidavits/Affirmations and Exhibits 1

Plaintiff's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits 2

Defendants' Affirmation in Reply 3

Motion Seq. #6

Defendant Ashwahl's Notice of Motion, Affirmations, Exhibits and Memorandum of Law 1

Plaintiff's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits 2

Defendant Ashwahl's Affirmation in Reply

II. Background

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff commenced the instant action against Defendants Dennis (hereinafter, "Dennis") and Lombardo (hereinafter, "Lombardo") by filing a summons with complaint seeking possession of Plaintiff's vehicle with an alleged monetary value of $27,500.00. Later on the same day, Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended summons and complaint to solely add D. Dennis Motors, LLC d/b/a Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Fiat of Manhattan (i/s/h/a Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat of Manhattan, hereinafter, "Chrysler") as a defendant (hereinafter, "Amended Complaint"). Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler joined the action by interposing an answer.

Thereafter, Plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3025 by motion to amend the caption to add Ashwal (i/s/h/a Ashwahl, hereinafter, "Ashwal") as a defendant to the action ("Motion #1"). Plaintiff subsequently moved pursuant to CPLR 3025 by a second motion to amend the caption to add Doyle (hereinafter, "Doyle") and Giglio (hereinafter, "Giglio") as additional defendants to the action ("Motion #2"). By decision and order of Hon. R. M., dated January 7, 2025, Plaintiff's Motion #1 and Motion #2 were granted, whereby Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the Amended Complaint to add Ashwal, Doyle and Giglio as additional defendants to the proceeding (see decision and order of Hon. R. M., dated January 7, 2025, hereinafter, "January 2025 Order"). The January 2025 Order also ordered the following: (1) "a supplemental summons and amended verified complaint shall be served, in accordance with the Civil Practice Law and Rules, upon the additional parties in this action within 30 days after entry of this order"; and (2) "the supplemental summons and amended complaint shall be deemed served upon the existing defendants upon service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, also to be done within 30 days" (id.).

On February 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended summons with endorsed complaint, which added Ashwal, Doyle and Giglio as additional defendants to the suit (hereinafter, "Amended Endorsed Complaint").

On May 21, 2025, Defendant Ashwal moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) by pre-answer motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Endorsed Complaint or alternatively for an order directing the filing of a more definite statement pursuant to CPLR 3024 ("Motion #3"). Due to Plaintiff's failure to appear for the pre-trial conference scheduled on June 23, 2025, the instant action was dismissed and Motion #3 was subsequently denied as moot.

On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) by order to show cause to vacate dismissal and to restore the action to the calendar ("Motion #4"), which was granted by decision and order of Hon. A. T. T., dated September 25, 2025.

Thereafter, Defendants Dennis, Lombardo, Chrysler, Doyle and Giglio moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (7) and (8) by motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Endorsed Complaint ("Motion #5"). Defendant Ashwal moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) by pre-answer motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Endorsed Complaint ("Motion #6"). Plaintiff filed opposition papers opposing both motions. Defendants replied in further support of their respective motions to dismiss.

Motion #5 and Motion #6 were submitted and subsequently assigned to this Court for determination.

III. Discussion

As a preliminary matter, pursuant to the January 2025 Order, Plaintiff was directed to serve and file a supplemental pleading with amended verified complaint on Defendants Ashwal, Doyle and Giglio within thirty (30) days within the date of entry of the order. Based upon Plaintiff's own submissions, the Court finds that the Amended Endorsed Complaint was served upon Defendant Ashwal on April 9, 2025 via the Sheriff (see Sheriff's Certificate of Service, dated April 9, 2025), upon Defendant Doyle on April 2, 2025 via the Sheriff (see Sheriff's Certificate of Service, dated April 2, 2025) and upon Defendant Giglio on April 2, 2025 via the Sheriff (see Sheriff's Certificate of Service, dated April 2, 2025), which was untimely pursuant to the court-mandated deadline imposed by the January 2025 Order. "If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]). Despite her failure to timely comply with the prior court's order, Plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse as to her delay in timely serving Defendants Ashwal, Doyle and Giglio in her opposition papers. Accordingly, Motion #5 is granted in part to the extent of dismissing the action as against Defendants Doyle and Giglio for lack of personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 3211[a][8]). In light of the foregoing, Motion #6 is granted, and the instant action is dismissed as against Defendant Ashwal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Court now turns to the remaining branches of Motion #5 seeking dismissal of the instant action as against Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler, the remaining defendants in the suit.

Here, Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler initially argued that dismissal was warranted as Plaintiff only served the forementioned defendants with a copy of the January 2025 Order and no notice of entry as required by the January 2025 Order (see Motion #5, affirmation of Samantah M. Stanciu, Esq., ¶¶ 10-11). However, later in reply, Defendants raised additional arguments in support of their motion, contending that dismissal was warranted as the Sheriff's Certificate of Service stated that the Amended Endorsed Complaint was served on an individual named "Fred Eldik," who was not an authorized person to accept service on behalf of Defendant Dennis (see Reply, affirmation of S. Stanciu, Esq., ¶¶ 8-10). This Court notes that the service of a copy of the January 2025 Order with notice of entry within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of the said order was sufficient to deem the supplemental summons and amended complaint as served upon remaining defendants, not the service of a copy of the Amended Endorsed Complaint (see January 2025 Order).

However, the Court was unable locate an affidavit of service with respect to the service of the January 2025 Order. As Defendants confirmed that they were served with a copy of the January 2025 Order and did not raise arguments as to the timeliness of the service of the said order, the Court declines to dismiss the action based on a procedural defect in self-represented Plaintiff's failure to also serve a notice of entry. A procedural defect in service as to the remaining Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler was not of the same legal significance as Plaintiff's failure to timely serve the amended pleadings upon the newly added defendants in accordance with the January 2025 Order.

Additionally, Defendants Dennis and Lombardo argued that the Amended Endorsed Complaint failed to state a claim against the individual defendants, who were purportedly working within the scope of their employment, and thus cannot be held liable for alleged corporate wrongdoing (id., ¶ 15-19).

In the case at bar, Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler sought to dismiss the Amended Endorsed Complaint. Pursuant to CCA § 903, the formal pleading requirements are inapplicable to an endorsed complaint in a Civil Court action, as its purpose is "merely to apprise defendant of the nature of the cause of action" (see Carcione v Rizzo, 154 Misc 2d 13 at 14 [App Term, 2d Dept 1992]; CCA 903).

CCA § 902(a)(1) states, in pertinent part:

"[i]f the plaintiff's cause of action is for money only, the cause of action may be set forth by indorsement upon the summons. The indorsement shall consist of a statement of the nature and substance of the cause of action, and the summons in such instance shall set forth the amount in which the plaintiff will take judgment in the event of default."

When an endorsed complaint fails to meet the requirements of CCA 902(a)(1), the defendant may request that the court direct plaintiff to serve and file a formal pleading (see CCA 902[e]; Messina v Lippman, 55 Misc 3d 1, 5-6 [App Term, 2d Dept 2016] [holding that the "pleading requirements of a formal pleading are not applicable to an indorsement pleading in a Civil Court action" and that the defendant's remedy was to seek a more formal pleading or discovery]).

Here, the Court finds that at this juncture any issues regarding Defendant Dennis and Lombardo's personal liability should be evaluated based on a complete pleading.

Therefore, pursuant to CPLR 902(e), the Court grants the remaining branches of Motion #5 only to the extent of directing Plaintiff to serve and file a formal complaint on Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this decision and order, detailing the full nature and substance of the cause(s) of action. The failure to serve and file a formal complaint by the forementioned court-mandated deadline shall result in the dismissal of the instant action. Motion #5 is otherwise denied.

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Motion #5, Defendants Dennis, Lombardo, Chrysler, Doyle and Giglio's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Endorsed Complaint is GRANTED to the extent that the instant action is dismissed as against Defendants Doyle and Giglio; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of Motion #5 in regard to Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff is directed to serve and file a formal complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this decision and order; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's failure to serve and file a formal complaint by the forementioned court-mandated deadline shall result in the dismissal of the instant action as against Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler; and it is further

ORDERED that Motion #5 is otherwise DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Motion #6, Defendant Ashwal's pre-answer motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Endorsed Complaint is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff and Defendants Dennis, Lombardo and Chrysler are directed to appear for pre-trial conference in room 428, Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, 111 Centre Street, New York, NY 10013 on a date to be decided by the Clerk.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.

DATE July 13, 2026

HON. WENDY CHANGYONG LI, J.C.C.

Wendy Changyong Li, J.