SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X OKSANA O. TUMAN, -against- Plaintiff, SUNSET BOYZ CORPORATION and MERCEDES RIVERA, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X Index #: 504342/2016 AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION File # 657992 JOHN P. McEVOY, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following to be true to under the penalty of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106: 1. I am a partner in BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C., attorneys for the defendants named herein as SUNSET BOYZ CORPORATION and MERCEDES RIVERA for the limited purpose of the instant motion(s). I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action as set forth, based upon the contents of the file maintained in this office. 2. I respectfully make this Affirmation in opposition to plaintiff's motion which seeks relief in the form of an Order granting a default judgment against the defendants for allegedly failing to timely interpose an answer to the summons and complaint. 1 of 9
3. BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C., was appointed to appear in herein and to oppose the motion for a default judgment by the motor vehicle insurance carrier which that had a policy in effect on the date of accident. However, that carrier, American transit Insurance Company has issued a disclaimed of coverage for the instant action for the alleged failure of the defendants timely provide the carrier notice of the instant action. A copy of the disclaimer letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 4. It is further noted that defendant whom plaintiff names as MERCEDES RIVERA is not a female as suggested by the letter moving counsel offers his Exhibit D but rather is a man named JONATHAN RIVERA MERCEDES. A copy of his driver s license is annexed as Exhibit B. 5. Additionally the corporate defendant SUNSET BOYZ CORPORATION no longer exists having been dissolved by proclamation on file with the Secretary of State. A copy thereof is annexed hereto as Exhibit C. 6. In an effort to resolve the default and the potential disclaimer of coverage, BAKER, McEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. served an answer on May 19, 2017. A copy of the answer is annexed as Exhibit D. 7. Upon information and belief, plaintiff has not rejected the answer as untimely, thereby tacitly accepting same. In fact, the failure to timely and explicitly 2 of 9
reject an answer, by returning same with an explanation therefore, has been held to waive the right to reject the answer. 8. Physical retention of a pleading for an extended period of time will almost invariably constitute a waiver of its late service. County of Nassau v. Cedric Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 890, 891, 474 N.Y.S.2d 549; Buchner v. Pines Hotel, 74 A.D.2d 969, 426 N.Y.S.2d 171; Dailey v. Smiley, 65 A.D.2d 915, 410 N.Y.S.2d 468; Lucenti v. City of Buffalo, 29 A.D.2d 833, 834, 287 N.Y.S.2d 612). The motion should therefore be denied and the answer deemed accepted. 9. Plaintiff s motion itself fails to meet the procedural requirements of CPLR 3215(f) in that it lacks an affidavit of the facts of the occurrence from a person with personal knowledge. Although plaintiff has verified the complaint, same lacks sufficient evidentiary factual allegations to meet the demands of the statute. Celnick v Freitag, 242 A.D.2d 436, 662 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 07343, N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Sep 11, 1997. See also, Goodman v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, 768 N.Y.S.2d 365; Drake v. Drake, 296 A.D.2d 566; DeVivo v. Sparago, 287 A.D.2d 535, Parratta v. McAllister, 283 A.D.2d 625,; Fiorino v. Yung, 281 A.D.2d 513; Grainger v. Wright, 274 A.D.2d 549. 10. The court retains the obligation to determine whether the applicant has met the burden of stating a prima facie cause of action; lack of opposition does not 3 of 9
negate this judicial function. Dyno v. Rose, 260 A.D.2d 694, 687 N.Y.S.2d 497, appeal dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 998, 695 N.Y.S.2d 743, 717 N.E.2d 1080, leave to appeal denied 94 N.Y.2d 753, 700 N.Y.S.2d 426, 722 N.E.2d 506. 11. Defendants have a meritorious defense to the action, same is established by the affidavit of JONATHAN RIVERA MERCEDES annexed hereto as Exhibit E. Therein he explains, that the accident occurred when the plaintiff unexpectedly and without warning came to a sudden stop on a green light. The factual explanation raises substantial issue as to contributory negligence by the plaintiff in the happening of the occurrence. 12. Additionally JONATHAN RIVERA MERCEDES denies that he was served with a summons and complaint in this action. As was explained above, he is misdesignated in the caption as MERCEDES RIVERA and was apparently thought to be woman by moving counsel, raising substantial doubt as to whether service could gain jurisdiction over his person even if he had been served. 13. It is also believed for the same reasons that the statement of plaintiff's process server is insufficient to meet the requirements of the requirements of the Federal Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 and the New York State Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1951 requiring that, "before a default judgment can be entered against a natural person the party seeking to enter the default judgment 4 of 9
must submit an affidavit to the Court showing that the defaulting party is neither in the active military service nor dependent on anyone else who is." Citibank v. McGarvey, 196 Misc.2d 292; Development of the City on New York v. West 129 Street Realty Corp., 3 Misc.3d 1102(A). 14 Having established a meritorious defense and denial that service of the summons and complaint was made, a justified basis exists to both deny the motion to enter a default and to compel the acceptance of the answer that was already served. 15. In respect to SUNSET BOYZ CORPORATION, defense counsel has been unable to locate a natural person with authority to offer an affidavit or even discuss the dissolved corporation. 16. However plaintiff s offer of proof as to service on the dissolved corporation fails to include admissible proof service by first class mail at least 20 days prior to the taking of a default judgment as mandated by CPLR 3215(g)(4)(i). While a receipt is offered for certified mailing, there is no receipt of affidavit of service for the required first class mailing. As such the motion should be denied. 17. Additionally, as the corporation is dissolved, it cannot be concluded that any service was actually received by a person able to act or accept same for the corporation. An delay therefore by them in answering should therefore be excused. 5 of 9
18. In the interests of justice and so that this action may be tried on its merits, it is respectfully requested that this court not only deny the request for a default judgment but deem the annexed amended answer to the amended summons and complaint accepted. 19. It is respectively pointed out to this Court that compelling acceptance of the answer will not prejudice movant herein, but will permit the matter to proceed on the merits. In A & J Concrete Corp., v. Arker, 54 N.Y.2d 870, 444 N.Y.S.2d 905, (1981), the Court of Appeals held that it is within the Court's power to grant an extension to plead when the delay in service was not willful, extensive or prejudicial to the parties. (See, CPLR 2004). 20. The law has always favored the resolution of cases on the merits rather than by default and to that end a liberal policy towards opening defaults exists. Patrone v. Jon-Bar Enterprises Corp., 528 N.Y.S.2d 912 (3d Dept., 1988); Picinic v. Seatrain Lines, 117 A.D.2d 504, 508, 497 N.Y.S.2d 924 (1st Dept., 1986); Bishop v. Galasso, 67 A.D.2d 753, 412 N.Y.S.2d 214 (3d Dept., 1979). 21. Case and statutory law both favor allowing the acceptance of late answers. CPLR 3012(d), grants the Court broad discretionary power to extend the time to plead, or to compel acceptance of a pleading untimely served, "upon such terms 6 of 9
as may be just and upon showing of reasonable excuse for delay." USAA Casualty Ins. Co, 97 A.D.2d 837, 468 N.Y.S.2d 913 (2nd Dept. 1983); Tehan v. Tehan, 97 A.D.2d 840, 468 N.Y.S.2d 912(2nd Dept. 1983). WHEREFORE, for all the reasons aforesaid it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an Order denying the motion to enter a default judgment and deeming the amended answer accepted or compel acceptance of said answer and such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. Affirmed: Brooklyn, New York June 7, 2017 JOHN P. McEVOY 7 of 9
STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) : SS : COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, JOHN P. McEVOY, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following to be true to under the penalty of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106: That I am not a party to this action; am over 18 years of age, and resides in Mercer County, New Jersey. That on June 7, 2017, I served the within AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION upon the attorneys listed below, at their listed addresses which were so designated by said attorneys for said purpose, by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a post paid properly addressed wrapper in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the U.S. Postal Service within the State of New York. To: COHEN & COHEN LAW GROUP, P.C. 104-70 Queens Blvd., 312 Forest Hills, New York 11375 JOHN P. McEVOY 8 of 9
Index No.: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X OKSANA O. TUMAN, -against- Plaintiff, SUNSET BOYZ CORPORATION and MERCEDES RIVERA, Defendants BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. Attorneys for:// Office and Post Office Address, Telephone 1 MetroTech Center Brooklyn, New York 11201 (212)-857-8230 To: Attorney(s) for: Service of a copy of the within Dated, is hereby admitted.... Attorney(s) for 9 of 9