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.
COMMISSIONERS OF STATE INSURANCE FUND, respondent, v. NOBRE, INC., appellant.
In an action to recover unpaid premiums for a worker's compensation insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated March 4, 2005, which denied its motion to vacate a judgment entered September 19, 2003, upon its failure to appear or answer, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $128,293.08.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint since it failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116; Taylor v. Saal, 4 A.D.3d 467, 771 N.Y.S.2d 671). The plaintiff established that it effected service upon the defendant by delivering a copy of the summons and verified complaint to the Secretary of State (see CPLR 311[a][1]; Business Corporation Law § 306; Nichols v. Richmond Ambulance Serv., 259 A.D.2d 741, 687 N.Y.S.2d 397). The defendant did not contend that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect, and the mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the affidavit of service (see Carrenard v. Mass, 11 A.D.3d 501, 782 N.Y.S.2d 810; Truscello v. Olympia Constr., 294 A.D.2d 350, 351, 741 N.Y.S.2d 709; Wieck v. Halpern, 255 A.D.2d 438, 680 N.Y.S.2d 599).
Furthermore, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 was also properly denied since the defendant failed to demonstrate that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action (see General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Grade A Auto Body, 21 A.D.3d 447, 799 N.Y.S.2d 748; 96 Pierrepont v. Mauro, 304 A.D.2d 631, 757 N.Y.S.2d 468; Waldon v. Plotkin, 303 A.D.2d 581, 756 N.Y.S.2d 765).
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: May 02, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)