You are here: / / Answer Submitted Pro Se by Corporation Is a Nullity
, ,

Answer Submitted Pro Se by Corporation Is a Nullity

The Second Department noted that a corporation must be represented by counsel and an answer submitted by a corporation pro se was a nullity:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in accepting an untimely, pro se answer from the defendant corporation, and in thereby denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment on the complaint. The proffered answer was a nullity, since a corporation must be represented by an attorney and cannot proceed pro se (see CPLR 321[a]…). Boente v Peter C Kurth Off of Architecture & Planning PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00473, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

You might also like
Testimony Insufficient to Overcome Presumption Photo Arrays, Which Were Not Preserved, Were Unduly Suggestive—Subsequent Line-Up, Which Included Persons Much Older than Defendant, Was Unduly Suggestive—New Trial Ordered
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION FOR A DRIVEWAY LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S GARAGE (SECOND DEPT).
PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT AND THE SANCTIONED PARTY WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED ON HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC CAN BE BASED ON THE OVERALL STRAIN ON THE OVERWHELMED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MED MAL CASE MAY DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO IMMUNITY AS THE CASE PROGRESSES, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
Motion for Resentencing Under CPL 440.46 (Drug Reform Law) Properly Denied

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Contract of Adhesion/Unconscionable-Contract Cause of Action Should Have Survived... Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act