Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KPG INC., formerly known as Kurland Passaretti Group, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SALINAS GROUP LIMITED, et al., Defendants, 120 Broadway Properties, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered June 24, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment as to liability as against defendants 120 Broadway Properties, LLC and 120 Broadway, LLC (collectively 120 Broadway), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
While plaintiff's initial papers in support of its default motion were insufficient because they did not include evidentiary proof predicated upon personal knowledge to support plaintiff's claims, premised on Lien Law § 70, an affidavit subsequently supplied by plaintiff rectified the deficiency. In view of the failure of 120 Broadway to provide a reasonable excuse for not responding to plaintiff's pleadings, which were served both upon the Secretary of State (see Business Corporation Law § 306) and personally upon the corporate defendants at their place of business and/or at the address of their designated agents for service (see CPLR 3215[g] [4] ), the default finding against 120 Broadway was warranted. The bare denial by 120 Broadway of its receipt of plaintiff's summons and complaint did not constitute a reasonable excuse for defendants' failure to timely answer the pleading (see Crespo v. Kynda Cab Corp., 299 A.D.2d 295, 749 N.Y.S.2d 723 [2002] ). We note in this connection that the corporate defendants, although obligated to keep the Secretary of State apprised of their current corporate address (see Widgren v. 313 E. 9th Assocs., Ltd., 295 A.D.2d 146, 742 N.Y.S.2d 837 [2002] ), did not do so.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 19, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)