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.
HILTON CHECK CASHING CORP., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. K. THOMPSON FOODS LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and Jared Edmond, Comanita Scott, Grady Marceles Reid and Joshua Lampley, Defendants.
Order (Erik L. Gray, J.), entered March 14, 2023, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Defendant K. Thompson Food LLC's motion to vacate its default in answering for lack of jurisdiction (see CPLR 5015[a][4]) was properly denied. The process server's affidavit indicating service upon defendant through the Secretary of State was prima facie evidence of proper service (see Gourvitch v 92nd & 3rd Rest Corp., 146 AD3d 431 [2017]; Shanker v 119 E.30th, Ltd., 63 AD3d 553, 554 [2009]). In opposition, defendant did not contend that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect, and the mere denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut the presumption that service was proper (see Frazier v 811 E. 178th St. Realty Corp., 183 AD3d 413 [2020]; Grinshpun v Borokhovich, 100 AD3d 551, 552 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]).
Nor was defendant entitled to vacatur relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1). Inasmuch as the only excuse offered is the meritless improper service argument, defendant has no reasonable excuse for the default (see Citibank, N.A. v K.L.P. Sportswear, Inc., 144 AD3d 475, 476 [2016]).
Defendant was also not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 317 because it failed to rebut plaintiff's proof that it received actual notice of the action in time to defend (see Fisher v Lewis Constr. NYC Inc., 179 AD3d 407 [2020]). The affidavit of service indicating that, pursuant to CPLR 3215, an additional copy of the summons and complaint were mailed to defendant at its correct business address, created a presumption of proper mailing and receipt, and defendant did not adequately rebut that presumption (see Thas v Dayrich Trading, Inc., 78 AD3d 1163 [2010]; Frazier v 811 E. 178th St. Realty Corp., 183 AD3d at 413).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Per Curiam.
All concur
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 23-056
Decided: November 17, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, 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)