Court Opinion

ID: 9954286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:10:25.254445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:04.604272
License: Public Domain

PDM Capital, LLC v Petal Artist L.L.C.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30928(U)
                     March 20, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157110/2023
                  Judge: Louis L. Nock
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 157110/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LOUIS L. NOCK                                                PART                              38M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X     INDEX NO.          157110/2023
             PDM CAPITAL, LLC,
                                                                                                   MOTION DATE         11/27/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                   MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             PETAL ARTIST L.L.C., d/b/a ZUZU’S PETALS AND
                                                                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
             GIFTS/PETAL ARTIST, and CINDY R. STEVENSON,
                                                                                                           MOTION
                                                         Defendants.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 001) 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
            20, 21, and 22
            were read on this motion for                                                         DEFAULT JUDGMENT                    .

            LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C.

                      Upon the foregoing documents, plaintiff’s motion seeking entry of a default judgment is

            granted in part, on default and without opposition, and for the reasons stated in the motion, as

            follows.

                      Background

                      In this action, plaintiff PDM Capital, LLC asserts claims for breach of contract and

            breach of a personal guarantee against Petal Artist L.L.C., d/b/a Zuzu’s Petals and Gifts/Petal

            Artist (referred to collectively as the “Corporate Defendant”), and Cindy R. Stevenson (the

            “Guarantor”) (Corporate Defendant and Guarantor, collectively, the “Defendants”) (summons

            and complaint, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 15-24). On December 13, 2022, plaintiff agreed to

            purchase rights to Corporate Defendant’s future receivables pursuant to a “Future Receivable

            Sales Agreement” (the “Agreement”), which was guaranteed by Guarantor under a “Security

            Agreement & Guaranty” (merchant agreement, NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). As more fully set forth in

             157110/2023 PDM CAPITAL, LLC vs. PETAL ARTIST L.L.C. ET AL                                                Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157110/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            the complaint, which was verified by Abraham Cohen, plaintiff’s authorized representative, after

            initially meeting its obligations under the Agreement, Corporate Defendant breached the

            Agreement by failing to remit to plaintiff a percentage of Corporate Defendant’s receivables

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 9-14; payment history, NYSCEF Doc. No. 12). A principal balance of

            $82,010.00, plus cost and disbursements in the amount of $455.00, remains due and owing to

            plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 20, 24; Bouskila aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 16, ¶ 16).

                   Plaintiff commenced this action on July 14, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1). Affidavits of

            service, regular on their face, attest to service pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306(b) on

            Corporate Defendant by service on the Secretary of State on July 26, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No.

            4, 5). However, as further discussed below, plaintiff served Guarantor pursuant to CPLR 308(2)

            by delivery on March 21, 2023, and by mailing on March 24, 2023, prior to filing the summons

            and complaint (NYSCEF Doc. No. 6). Otherwise, an affirmation of additional service filed in

            support of the motion attests to the requisite additional mailing on all Defendants pursuant to

            CPLR 3215(g)(3)(i) and (4)(i) on November 13, 2023, more than twenty days in advance of

            entry of judgment (Bouskila aff. of service, NYSCEF Doc. No. 23). Defendants’ time to respond

            to the complaint has expired, and they have neither appeared nor answered the complaint.

            Moreover, there is no opposition to the motion.

                   Standard of Review

                   A plaintiff that seeks entry of a default judgment for a defendant's failure to answer must

            submit proof of service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant, proof of the facts

            constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant's default (CPLR 3215[f]). “The standard of

            proof is not stringent, amounting only to some firsthand confirmation of the facts” (Feffer v

            Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]). “[D]efaulters are deemed to have admitted all

             157110/2023 PDM CAPITAL, LLC vs. PETAL ARTIST L.L.C. ET AL                          Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                             2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157110/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them”

            (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]). Nevertheless, “CPLR 3215 does

            not contemplate that default judgments are to be rubber-stamped once jurisdiction and a failure

            to appear have been shown. Some proof of liability is also required to satisfy the court as to the

            prima facie validity of the uncontested cause of action” (Guzetti v City of New York, 32 AD3d

            234, 235 [1st Dept 2006] [internal quotations and citations omitted]).

                   Discussion

                   The motion is denied as to defendant Guarantor due to defective service of process.

            Pursuant to CPLR 304(a), a civil action is commenced “by filing a summons and complaint or

            summons with notice,” and service of such papers must be made “within one hundred twenty

            days after the commencement of the action” (CPLR 306-b). Dismissal of the complaint is

            appropriate where “service of the summons and complaint . . . [is] not made within 120 days of

            the commencement of the action as required by CPLR 306–b” (Qing Dong v. Chen Mao Kao,

            115 A.D.3d 839, 840 [2014]). Here, plaintiff prematurely served defendant Guarantor by

            delivery on March 21, 2023, and by mailing on March 24, 2023, prior to commencing the action

            by filing the summons and complaint on July 14, 2023. Thus, after commencement of the action,

            plaintiff failed to serve Guarantor, warranting dismissal of the action against Guarantor for lack

            of personal jurisdiction.

                   As to Corporate Defendant, plaintiff has satisfied its burden on the motion by submission

            of the affidavits of service on said defendant (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 4, 5) and the affirmation of

            additional mailing on said defendant (NYSCEF Doc. No. 23), the affirmation of plaintiff’s

            counsel Ariel Bouskila, Esq., attesting to said defendant’s default (NYSCEF Doc. No. 8, ¶ 11),

            and the verified complaint by Cohen, which attests to the facts alleged therein and the amount of

             157110/2023 PDM CAPITAL, LLC vs. PETAL ARTIST L.L.C. ET AL                           Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                             3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157110/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            plaintiff’s damages (NYSCEF Doc. No. 15). Corporate Defendant has never appeared in the

            action, nor did it submit any opposition to the motion. The court concurs with the points raised in

            support of the motion and, therefore, grants the motion as to Corporate Defendant.

                      Accordingly, it is

                      ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is denied as against defendant

            Cindy R. Stevenson; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed as against defendant Cindy R. Stevenson; and

            it is further

                      ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is otherwise granted as against

            defendant Petal Artist L.L.C., d/b/a Zuzu’s Petals and Gifts/Petal Artist; and, accordingly, it is

            further

                      ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff

            PDM Capital, LLC, and against defendant Petal Artist L.L.C., d/b/a Zuzu’s Petals and Gifts/Petal

            Artist, in the principal amount of $82,465.00, with interest thereon at the statutory rate from

            January 1, 2023, through entry of judgment, as calculated by the Clerk, and continuing to accrue

            thereafter through satisfaction of judgment, together with costs and disbursements as taxed by

            the Clerk upon submission of an appropriate bill of costs.

             157110/2023 PDM CAPITAL, LLC vs. PETAL ARTIST L.L.C. ET AL                            Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                             4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 157110/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                   This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                                                                             ENTER:

                   3/20/2024                                                                 $SIG$
                     DATE                                                             LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:                X   CASE DISPOSED                      NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

            APPLICATION:
                                          GRANTED

                                          SETTLE ORDER
                                                               DENIED    X   GRANTED IN PART

                                                                             SUBMIT ORDER
                                                                                                      □   OTHER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT
                                                                                                      □   REFERENCE

            157110/2023 PDM CAPITAL, LLC vs. PETAL ARTIST L.L.C. ET AL                                 Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]