You are here: / / Although Not Raised by the Defendant Below, the Appellate Court Vacated...

Although Not Raised by the Defendant Below, the Appellate Court Vacated the Default Pursuant to CPLR 317

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion for leave to file a default judgment was properly denied and defendant was properly allowed to serve a late answer.  Although the defendant failed to explain why it failed to file the correct address for service of process with the Secretary of State, there was no question that the defendant did not receive notice of the summons in time to defend and did nothing to deliberately avoid service.  The Second Department used CPLR 317 as its basis for vacating the default, even though that ground was not cited by the defendant below:

Although the defendant did not cite to CPLR 317 in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, under the circumstances of this case, this Court may consider CPLR 317 as a basis for vacating the default (see CPLR 2001…). CPLR 317 permits a defendant who has been “served with a summons other than by personal delivery” to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant “did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense” (CPLR 317…). Here, the record reveals that neither the defendant nor its agent received actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Secretary of State, in time to defend itself against this action … . There is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that the defendant was deliberately attempting to avoid service of process, especially since the plaintiffs had knowledge of the defendant's actual business address … . In addition, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Gershman v Midtown Moving & Storage Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08959, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

You might also like
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE GENERATION OF THE DNA PROFILE HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURE USED OR INDEPENDENTLY ANALYZED THE RAW DATA; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
IN AN EFFORT TO CONVINCE THE COURT TO GRANT THEIR REQUEST FOR A COMPETENCY HEARING BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S REJECTION OF A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS REVEALED CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE ATTEMPTING TO HELP THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS BECAME WITNESSES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.
IN A MODIFICATION-OF-CHILD-SUPPORT PROCEEDING, EVEN WHERE THE MOVING PARTY MAKES OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE SUPPORTING A REDUCTION, IF THE SUBMISSIONS RAISE QUESTIONS OF FACT A HEARING MUST BE HELD BEFORE A RULING IS MADE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).
Court Can Not Order Treatment as Condition of Future Visitation—Okay to Order Treatment as Component of Supervised Visitation
Nothing in the Documentation Submitted to the Lender Raised Any Questions About the Applicant’s Authority, as the Sole Member, to Enter the Mortgage on Behalf of Defendant Limited Liability Company—Therefore the Affirmative Defense Alleging the Mortgage Was Invalid Because there Were Undisclosed Members of the Limited Liability Company Was Properly Dismissed
THE CONSENT-TO-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT INDIVIDUALLY TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED; IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR FOR APPEAL AND APPEAL WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

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

Arbitrator Exceeded His/Her Powers by Awarding More than the Requested Amount... Civil Forfeiture Should Not Have Been Made Part of Defendant’s Sentence...