Lopez v. Trucking & Stratford, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- C3 Data, LLC v. 212 Media Group Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Gourvitch v. 92nd & 3rd Rest Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Paez v. 1610 Saint Nicholas Avenue L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Paez v. 1610 Saint Nicholas Avenue L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Walley v. Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Young v. Richards (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Fekete v. Camp Skwere (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Costigan & Co. v. Costigan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell on defendant’s premises, denied defendant’s motion to vacate an order granting a default judgment against it on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant’s conclusory assertions, made in its attorney’s affirmation, that there are obvious issues of fact relating to notice and comparative negligence, without any further specification whatsoever, fail to show a meritorious defense, and therefore defendant is not entitled to relief under either CPLR 317 or 5015 (see Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 189, 190; see also Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Zucker, 225 AD2d 308, 309; Widgren v 313 E. 9th Assoc., 295 AD2d 146).
Plaintiff’s affidavit of mailing of an additional summons and complaint to defendant’s last known address, as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i), does not indicate, as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (ii), that the additional service was accompanied by a notice to defendant that service had been made on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 (b). This defect, however, does not warrant vacating the default judgment absent a showing of a meritorious defense (cf. Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt., 292 AD2d 5, 10). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.