You are here: / / THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO...
, ,

THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff was not required to comply with the additional notice requirement in CPLR 3215(g)(4) which does not apply to service upon a limited liability company (the defendant here), as opposed to corporations:

The court [in denying plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment] determined that the plaintiff had failed to comply with CPLR 3215(g)(4) and that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint in that it had not been served with process. …

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate compliance with the additional notice requirement of CPLR 3215(g)(4) … . “By its express terms, the notice requirement is limited to situations where a default judgment is sought against a ‘domestic or authorized foreign corporation’ which has been served pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306(b), and does not pertain to a limited liability company” … . Mitchell v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 06477, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: The additional notice requirement for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(4) does not apply to service on a limited liability company, as opposed to a corporation.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER REQUIRING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE ANSWER DESPITE THE FAILURE TO MAKE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; THE DEFENDANT GETS A SECOND CHANCE TO ADD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IF THE COURT GRANT’S LEAVE TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT). ​
Judge’s Statement Defense Counsel Should Confine Her Opening to What She Intended to Prove, Under the Facts, Did Not Shift Burden of Proof
Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, HE WAS A TITLE-HOLDER AND WAS LISTED AS A BORROWER ON THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE WAS UNDER MEDICATION AT THE HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; AT TRIAL THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO REJECT THE STATEMENT IF THEY FOUND IT WAS INVOLUNTARILY MADE; AND THE DEFENSE BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE EXCLUSION OF FOUR AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Driver Stalled in Moving Lane of Traffic Not Negligent Re: Rear-End Collision

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

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS MAINTENANCE-ARREARS ACTION... WHETHER THE VILLAGE POLICE WERE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR WORK...