Court Opinion

ID: 9966370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 20:08:25.183007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:53.039216
License: Public Domain

20 W. 47 St. Assoc., LLC v Rafaello & Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31555(U)
                      May 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652338/2022
             Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva
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. 652338/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:          HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA                          PART                                  42M
                                                        Justice
            ----------~--------.X                                                INDEX NO.                652338/2022
             20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC,
                                                                                 MOTION DATE              03/05/2024
                                               Plaintiff,
                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.              002
                                         -v-
             RAFAELLO & COMPANY, A & A DIAMONDS, LTD.,
                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             RAFAELKHAYARANBAYEV, YAAKOV NEKTALOV
                                                                                          MOTION
                                               Defendant.

            -------------------X
            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
            51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60
            were read on this motion to/for                                  JUDGMENT - DEFAULT

            HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA:

                    In this breach of contract action, 20 WEST 47 STREET

            ASSOCIATES, LLC ("plaintiff") moves, by notice of motion, dated

            March 1, 2024, for leave to enter a default judgment against

            RAFAELLO      &    COMPANY and A & A DIAMONDS, LTD.,                       (collectively

            "corporate defendants") and RAFAELKHAY ARANBAYEV and YAAKOV

            NEKTALOV (collectively "individual defendants") in the amount of

            $203,961.01. 1 The defendants listed herein have not appeared in

            this action and submit no opposition.

                    For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the

            motion for lack of proper service on all defendants.

            1 The Court notes that the original summons with notice requested $202,952.36 ~ NYSCEF # 1)

             652338/2022 20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. RAFAELLO & COMPANY ET AL                    Page 1 of9
             Motion No. 002

                                                             1 of 8
[* 1]
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 652338/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                                                     BACKGROUND

                   By notice of motion (sequence number 001), dated January 3,

           2023, plaintiff moved, pursuant to CPLR 3215, for an order

           granting it a default judgment against defendants. The Court (N.

           Bannon, J.S.C.) denied said motion without prejudice to renewal

           within 30 days of its Decision and Order, dated February 7,

           2023. In denying the application, the Court reasoned that

           plaintiffs failed submit sufficient proof of the facts

           constituting the claim               see Decision and Order, dated February

           7, 2023       [N. Bannon, J.S.C.], para 4, citing CPLR 3215[f]). The

           same Decision and Order did not address whether plaintiff

           properly served defendants. Instead, the court {N. Bannon,

           J.S.C.) provided that                "even assuming the that the plaintiff

           has submitted proof of service of the summons and complaint and

           proof of the defendants' default" - plaintiff's application

           failed in setting forth a prima facie case of a breach of

           contract claim.

                   Within 30 days of the denial of its initial motion,

           plaintiffs filed an "amended" notice of motion on March 6, 2023.

           The Court (N. Bannon J.S.C.) denied the application as the

           "amended" motion was improperly filed under motion sequence

           number 001, rather than under motion sequence 002 (see Decision

           and Order, dated February 8, 2024 [N. Bannon J.S.C.]).

            652338/2022 20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. RAFAELLO & COMPANY ET AL         Page 2 of9
            Motion No. 002

                                                         2 of 8
[* 2]
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 652338/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                    Within 30 days of the denial of plaintiffs second

           application to the court, plaintiff filed the instant motion

            (motion sequence 002), seeking an order granting them a default

           judgment. No defendants have appeared or submitted any

           opposition to the subject application.

                                                               ANALYSIS

                    A proponent for a default judgment must provide proof of

           service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts

           constituting the claim, and proof of the default (CPLR 3215 [f];

           see also Gordon Law Firm, P.C. v Premier DNA Corp., 205 AD3d

           416, 416 [1st Dept 2022]). A court lacks personal jurisdiction

           over a defendant who is not properly served with process (see

           Nationstar Mtge., LLC v.·Esdelle, 186 A.D.3d 1384, 1386 [2d Dept

           2020]. Furthermore, the movant must comply with the additional

           mailing requirements, as articulated in CPLR § 3215(g) . 2

           2 CPLR 3215[g][3][i] provides, in pertinent part, that "[w]hen a default judgment based upon nonappearance
                                                                                                                            is
           sought against a natural person in an action based upon nonpayment of a contractual obligation an affidavit shall be
           submitted that additional notice has been given by or on behalf of the plaintiff at least twenty days before the entry
           of such judgment, by mailing a copy of the summons by first-class mail to the defendant at his [or her] place of
           residence."
           CPLR 3215[g][4][i] provides, in pertinent part, that when a default judgment is sought against a corporation that has
           been served by service upon the Secretary of State (see Business Corporation Law § 306[b]), the plaintiff must mail
           an additional copy of the summons and complaint to the corporation "via first class mail" at its "last known
           address."
            652338/2022 20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. RAFAELLO & COMPANY ET AL                           Page 3 of 9
            Motion No. 002

                                                                  3 of 8
[* 3]
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 652338/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                                             INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

                  In support of its motion for a default against individual

           defendants Rafaelkhay Aranbayev and Yaakov Nektalov, plaintiff

           submits affidavits of service of its process server Michael

           Gorman      see exhibit G and H). Therein, the process server

           affirms that they executed service through "substitute service,"

           pursuant to CPLR § 308(2), on both individual defendants on

           September 1, 2022 at 12:33pm. The affidavit indicates that

           "Danny 'Doe'" was served, that he is a person of suitable age

           and discretion, and that he is "authorized to accept." A

           physical description of "Danny 'Doe'" is also provided, notably

           "Danny 'Doe'" being listed as 21 years old, but their

           relationship to both individual defendants is left blank (see

           exhibit G and H).

                  Service of process upon a natural person must be made in

           strict compliance with the methods of service set .forth in CPLR

           § 308 (see Dorfman v Leidner, 76 NY2d 956 [1990]). Service of

           process under CPLR § 308(2), which is at issue here, requires

           that the summons be delivered within the state to a person of

          · suitable age and discretion at the defendant's "actual place of

           business, dwelling place or usual place of abode," along with a

           mailing of the summons to the defendant's last known residence

           or actual place of business. Personal jurisdiction is not

            652338/2022 20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. RAFAELLO & COMPANY ET AL         Page4of9
            Motion No. 002

                                                         4 of 8
[* 4]
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 652338/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

           acquired absent strict compliance with both the delivery and

           mailing requirements of CPLR § 308(2)                      (see Williams v MTA Bus

           Co., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00692 [1st Dept 2024].

                  Moreover, where, as here, plaintiffs seek a default against

           a natural person based on nonappearance, plaintiffs shall submit

           "an affidavit that additional notice has been given by or on

           behalf of the plaintiff[s] at least twenty days before the entry

           of such judgment, by mailing a copy of the summons by first-

           class mail to the defendant at [their] place of residence in an

           envelope bearing the legend 'personal and confidential' and not

           indicating on the outside of the envelope that the communication

           is from an attorney or concerns an alleged debt"                              (see CPLR

           §   3215 [g] [3] [i]).

                  The court must find that plaintiff failed to submit

           requisite proof of additional mailing pursuant to CPLR

           § 3215[g] [3] [i]. Here, the affidavit of additional service on

           March 15, 2024, was delivered "via Regular mail," and it did not

           indicate the envelope bared the legend "personal and

           confidential" and not indicating on the outside of the envelope

           that the communication is from an attorney of concerns an

           alleged debt         see NYSCEF #60).

            652338/2022 20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. RAFAELLO & COMPANY ET AL          Page 5of9
            Motion No. 002

                                                         5 of 8
[* 5]
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 652338/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                                              CORPORATE DEFENDANTS

                  In support of its motion for a default against corporate

           defendants Rafello & Company and A & A Diamonds, LTD, plaintiff

           submits affidavits of service attempting to effectuate service

           on the corporate defendants through two separate methods:

            (1) personal service             see exhibit D and E), and (2) service via

           the Secretary of State               see exhibit C and F).               The court finds

           that service on corporate defendants in this matter is

           insufficient.

                  CPLR § 31l(a) (1) provides that, personal service upon a

           corporation shall be made by delivering the summons "to an

           officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or

           assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by

           appointment or by law to receive service." Additionally, CPLR

           3ll(a) (1) provides that a plaintiff may serve a business

           corporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law§ 306.

                  Business Corporation Law§ 306{b) (1) permits service of

           process on the Secretary of state as agent of a domestic or

           authorized foreign corporation. However, if service is

           effectuated pursuant to Business Corporation Law§ 306,

           additional service of the summons by first-class mail on the

           non-appearing corporation is required {see CPLR 3215[g] [4]).

            652338/2022 20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. RAFAELLO & COMPANY ET AL        Page6 of9
            Motion No. 002

                                                         6 of 8
[* 6]
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 652338/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                  In plaintiff's affidavit of service on both corporate

           defendants, the process server describes serving "Danny 'Doe'"

           on September 1, 2022 at 12:33pm at 41 West 47th Street, New

           York, NY 10036. Both affidavits of service describe "Danny

           'Doe'" as a "party authorized to accept." "Danny 'Doe's'"

           relationship to both corporations is left blank.

                  The affidavits of service make no representation as to

           whether "Danny 'Doe"' is an officer, director, managing agent,

           or cashier of the corporation. Further, there is no showing that

           "Danny 'Doe'" had the power to act on behalf of the corporation

           in its business dealings or that they carried with them the

           discretion to act on behalf of the corporation.

                  Indeed, plaintiff submits no evidence of any inquiry made

           as to the recipients authority to receive process on behalf of

           both corporate defendants (see also Arvanitis v Bankers Tr. Co.,

           286 AD2d 273 [1st Dept 2001] .[the ~ourt will look to a process

           server's reasonable belief as to whether a recipient of process

           carried authority to receive process on behalf of another]; see

           also Colbert v Intl. Sec. Bur., Inc., 79 A.D.2d 448 [2d Dept

           1981] [providing that merely calling someone a "office manager"

           does not make someone a "managing agent" within the meaning of

           the statute]. Therefore, the court must find that service

           pursuant to CPLR 311(a) is insufficient.

            652338/2022 20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. RAFAELLO & COMPANY ET AL        Page 7 of 9
            Motion No. 002

                                                         7 of 8
[* 7]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 652338/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                   Plaintiff's affidavits of service, pursuant to Business

           Corporation Law§ 306, indicates service on the Secretary of

           State on November 7, 2022, at 3:15pm. However, plaintiff failed

           to demonstrate additional service on the corporate defendants,

           as CPLR 3215 [g]          [4] requires.           Here, the affidavit of

           additional service provides the process server mailed the papers

           on March 15, 2024 "via Regular mail," and made no indication to

           defendants that service was "being made or has been made,"

           pursuant to Business Corporation Law§ 306                           see CPLR

           3215 [g] [4] [ii]}.

                   As such, the plaintiff's motion for default judgment

           against the corporate defendants RAFAELLO & COMPANY and A & A

           DIAMONDS, LTD is denied. Since the defects can be cured, denial

           of the motion is without prejudice to renewal on proper papers

           within 30 days of the date of this order.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215

           for leave to enter a default judgment is denied without

           prejudice.

                     THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

                   5/01/2024
                     DATE

                                                                     □ NON-F
            CHECK ONE:

            APPLICATION:
                                   §   CASE DISPOSED
                                       GRANTED

                                       SETTLE ORDER
                                                       0    DENIED
                                                                                 DISPOSITION
                                                                        GRANTED IN PART
                                                                        SUBMIT ORDER
                                                                                               □ OTHER

            652338/2022 20 WEST 47 STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. RAFAELLO & COMPANY ET AL          Page 8 of 9
            Motion No. 002

                                                           8 of 8
[* 8]