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.
Fedex Corporate Services, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Oceanbox Wholesale LLC, Defendant.
The following papers numbered 1 to 2 were read on this motion:
Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion, Affidavit, Affirmation and Exhibits 1
Affirmations and Exhibits in Opposition 2
Plaintiff seeks summary judgment in its favor in this $40,784.92 collection case involving shipping costs for fish. According to a document that plaintiff calls a "statement of account," all of the outstanding invoices are from 2021. The invoices only appear to state "Oceanbox" on them, instead of a full corporate name.
In opposition, defendant submits an affirmation from its principal, Mitchell Slavin. Mr. Slavin states that he is a principal of two similarly-named, yet separate companies: Oceanbox Wholesale LLC ("Wholesale"), defendant herein, a company which sells fish wholesale to corporate accounts. He states that Wholesale does not have an account with plaintiff (and did not even exist at the time that the other company, Oceanbox E-Commerce Corp. ("E-Commerce") entered into an agreement with plaintiff). E-Commerce is a company which sells directly to consumers and ships via Fedex and other carriers. E-Commerce does have an account with plaintiff. Yet it is not named as a defendant herein. Mr. Slavin further states that even if plaintiff had named the correct defendant, it would still not be entitled to summary judgment because there were multiple problems with the shipments in question.
Plaintiff filed the summons and complaint back in 2023. It is thus too late for it to serve the correct defendant in this matter. CPLR § 306-b. Accordingly, the action is dismissed, without prejudice.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.1
Dated: September 9, 2025
White Plains, New York
HON. LINDA S. JAMIESON
Justice of the Supreme Court
FOOTNOTES
1. All other arguments raised, and all materials submitted by the parties in connection therewith, have been considered by this Court, notwithstanding the specific absence of reference thereto.
Linda S. Jamieson, J.
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.
Docket No: Index No. 57526 /2023
Decided: September 09, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Westchester County, 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)