Opinion
17405 Index No. 651022/20 Case No. 2022–01659
02-23-2023
FRANPO REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. POWER FURNITURE INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Felton & Associates, Brooklyn (Regina Felton of counsel), for appellants. Katz Melinger PLLC, New York (Adam J. Sackowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Felton & Associates, Brooklyn (Regina Felton of counsel), for appellants.
Katz Melinger PLLC, New York (Adam J. Sackowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Gonza´lez, Shulman, Rodriguez, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathy J. King, J.), entered on or about October 1, 2021, which granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, and denied defendants’ cross motion for a traverse hearing and for leave to serve a late answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court providently determined that the summons and complaint had been properly served on defendants, and thus the court had personal jurisdiction over them. The affidavits of plaintiff's process servers constituted prima facie proof of proper service on the individual defendants ( CPLR 308[2] ; e.g. San Lim v. MTA Bus Co., 190 A.D.3d 493, 493, 140 N.Y.S.3d 213 [1st Dept. 2021], lv dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1041, 154 N.Y.S.3d 566, 176 N.E.3d 303 [2021] ; JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Dennis, 166 A.D.3d 530, 530, 89 N.Y.S.3d 135 [1st Dept. 2018] ), and the corporate defendant ( CPLR 311[a][1] ; Business Corporation Law § 306[b][1] ; e.g. Fisher v. Lewis Constr. NYC Inc., 179 A.D.3d 407, 408, 117 N.Y.S.3d 29 [1st Dept. 2020] ; Gourvitch v. 92nd & 3rd Rest Corp., 146 A.D.3d 431, 431, 44 N.Y.S.3d 403 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Defendants’ conclusory denials of receipt were insufficient to raise an issue of fact, warranting a traverse hearing (e.g. Reliable Abstract Co., LLC v. 45 John Lofts, LLC, 152 A.D.3d 429, 429, 58 N.Y.S.3d 365 [1st Dept. 2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1056, 69 N.Y.S.3d 585, 92 N.E.3d 808 [2018] ; Grinshpun v. Borokhovich, 100 A.D.3d 551, 552, 954 N.Y.S.2d 520 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 857, 2013 WL 2436328 [2013] ; Colebrooke Theat. LLP v. Bibeau, 155 A.D.3d 581, 581, 64 N.Y.S.3d 512 [1st Dept. 2017], lv dismissed 31 N.Y.3d 1137, 81 N.Y.S.3d 361, 106 N.E.3d 744 [2018] ).
Supreme Court properly declined to extend defendants’ time to appear because defendants failed to articulate a reasonable excuse for their default (see CPLR 3012[d] ).