From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Premium Channels Pub. v. Rolls-Royce Motors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 2, 1991
172 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 2, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


Plaintiff purchased a Rolls Royce Corniche from the defendant Rallye Motors, an automobile dealership, in 1982 for $140,000. Contending that the vehicle never functioned properly, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant Rallye and the manufacturer alleging various causes of action, including breach of contract and breach of warranty. The manufacturer appeared, and on its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, the action against it was dismissed. On defendant Rallye's default in answering, after inquest, plaintiff was awarded $173,800, which plaintiff's president testified was the price of a new vehicle.

Defendant, approximately one month after the inquest, moved to vacate the default. Testimony was taken before a Special Referee, who recommended that the motion be denied. The Supreme Court confirmed the report of the Referee. Judgment was then entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount set forth above, and plaintiff was directed to surrender the old automobile within five days after satisfaction of the judgment.

We find no error in the denial of defendant's motion to vacate its default. In this regard, service of process at defendant's place of business, on defendant's service manager, who reported directly to defendant's principals, earned over $100,000 yearly, and supervised over 70 employees, complied with CPLR 311 (1). The process server was directed to the service manager by the receptionist, who had been advised of the nature of the papers, and the service manager admittedly accepted service and forwarded the papers immediately to defendant's litigation counsel. (Fashion Page v. Zurich Ins. Co., 50 N.Y.2d 265.) Nor has defendant demonstrated an excusable default. (Burks v. Weiss, 137 A.D.2d 646.)

However, we reverse the judgment and remand for a new inquest, as plaintiff failed to establish damages by acceptable proof. In this regard, hearsay testimony by the plaintiff as to the value of a comparable, new vehicle was insufficient, nor was any other proof of damages offered. (Wine Antiques v. St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co., 40 A.D.2d 657.)

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Premium Channels Pub. v. Rolls-Royce Motors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 2, 1991
172 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Premium Channels Pub. v. Rolls-Royce Motors

Case Details

Full title:PREMIUM CHANNELS PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. ROLLS-ROYCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 2, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 699

Citing Cases

Mastroianni v. Rallye Glen Cove, LLC

Service on an automobile dealership's service manager has been found sufficient. (see, Premium Channels Pub.…

Tricounty Constr. Corp. v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp.

See IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 907 N.E.2d 268, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355 (2009),…