Santiago v. Sansue Realty Corp., 243 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Santiago v. Sansue Realty Corp., 243 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Rothbeind, 212 A.D.3d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 623 Determining reasonable excuse to vacate default judgment17 citing cases“It is well settled that “a corporate defendant’s failure to receive copies of process served upon the Secretary of State due to a breach of its obligation to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State does not constitute a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering t…”the opinion's own words at *623 · 14 listed here
  • HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Rothbeind, 212 A.D.3d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023).published
    Serv. , 126 AD2d 621, 622 [2d Dept 1987]; see Bookman v 816 Belmont Realty, LLC , 180 AD3d 986, 987 [2d Dept 2020]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp. , 243 AD2d 622, 623 [2d Dept 1997]).
  • Vengrenyuk v. Exxonmobil Oil Corp., 144 A.D.3d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    Assoc., L.P., 69 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 623 [1997]; Paul Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S.
  • EHS Quickstops Corp. v. GRJH, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Partnership, 12 AD3d 402, 403 [2004]; Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d 404, 405 [2002]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 623 [1997]).
  • Hidalgo v. Cruiser Taxi Corp., 101 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
    Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143 [1986]; Fatima v Twenty Seven-Twenty Four Realty Corp., 53 AD3d 564 [2008]; J & S Constr. of NY, Inc. v 321 Bowery LLC, 39 AD3d 391 [2007]; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454 [2006]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Co…
  • Sussman v. Jo-Sta Realty Corp., 99 A.D.3d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
    “If the [defendant] failed to actually receive a copy of the summons and complaint from the Secretary of State due to a change of address, it was due to its own fault as it failed to keep the Secretary of State advised [of] its current add…
  • Castle v. Avanti, Ltd., 86 A.D.3d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143 [1986]; Fatima v Twenty Seven-Twenty Four Realty Corp., 53 AD3d 564 [2008]; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454 [2006]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 623 [1997]; Paul Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S.
  • Peck v. Dybo Realty Corp., 77 A.D.3d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Accordingly, the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint was not excusable (see Yellow Book of N.Y., Inc. v Weiss, 44 AD3d 755, 756 [2007]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 623 [1997]; Paul Conte Cadillac v…
  • NYCTL 2005-A Trust v. 2137-2153 Nostrand Avenue Assocs., L.P., 69 A.D.3d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Co., . 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 623 [1997]; FGB Realty Advisors v Norm-Rick Realty Corp., 227 AD2d 439 [1996]; Paul Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S.
  • Fatima v. Twenty Seven-Twenty Four Realty Corp., 53 A.D.3d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    While the defendant’s failure to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State did not constitute a reasonable excuse to vacate its default under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (see Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454 [2006]; Santiag…
  • Yellow Book of New York, Inc. v. Weiss, 44 A.D.3d 755 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).published
    Under the circumstances of this case, the corporate defendant’s failure to receive copies of the summons and complaint which had been served upon the Secretary of State was due to its unexplained failure to keep a current address on file w…
Show 4 more citing cases
  • Levine v. Forgotson's Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).published
    Furthermore, even if we were to consider the facts contained in the affirmation of the defendant’s attorney, which were improperly submitted for the first time in reply (see Jackson-Cutler v Long, 2 AD3d 590 [2003]), that there was an inco…
  • Sean v. 172 Aububon Corp., 32 A.D.3d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).published
    While the Supreme Court properly found that an incorrect address on file with the Secretary of State did not constitute a reasonable excuse sufficient to vacate the defendant’s default under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (see Santiago v Sansue Realty…
  • St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v. Blue Ridge Ins., 21 A.D.3d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005).published
    Ctr. of Queens v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 16 AD3d 391 [2005]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 623 [1997]; Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188 [1997]).
  • New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 16 A.D.3d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005).published
    Furthermore, the affidavit submitted by the defendant was insufficient to demonstrate that the injuries for which the insured was treated did not arise out of an insured incident (see Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 623 [1997…
At page 622 Reversing order vacating default judgment for lack of notice4 citing casesIn a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated…opening of page *622 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 3 listed here
  • Dela Cruz v. Keter Residence, LLC, 115 A.D.3d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    Co., 67 NY2d at 143 ; Hidalgo v Cruiser Taxi Corp., 101 AD3d 950, 951 [2012]; Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 622-623 [1997]; Paul Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S.
  • Hon-Kuen Lo v. Gong Park Realty Corp., 16 A.D.3d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005).published
    Partnership, 12 AD3d 402 [2004]; Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., supra at 405; compare Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622, 622-623 [1997]; Paul Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S.
  • Grosso v. MTO Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 12 A.D.3d 402 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).published
    There is no evidence that the defendant was on notice of the fact that an old address was on file with the Secretary of State (see Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., supra at 405; compare Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp., 243 AD2d 622,…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clara Santiago
v.
Sansue Realty Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 20, 1997.
Published opinion
243 A.D.2d 622
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10239
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated August 28, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered February 28, 1996, entered upon the defendant’s failure to appear and answer the complaint, in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $34,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered February 28, 1996, is denied, and the judgment is reinstated.

The plaintiff commenced this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell outside a building owned by the defendant. Service of the summons and complaint was made on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306. Upon the defendant’s default in appearing and answering the complaint, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against it. Thereafter, the defendant moved to vacate its default, claiming that it had not received notice of the summons and complaint because the address on file with the Secretary of State had not been its address for more than 25 years. Over the plaintiff’s opposition, the court granted the defendant’s motion and vacated the default. We reverse.

The defendant was not entitled to relief from the default judgment entered against it pursuant to CPLR 317. In opposition to the defendant’s motion to vacate its default, the plaintiff established that at least five months before commencement of the instant action, the defendant was placed on notice that the address on file with the Secretary of State was not correct. Nevertheless, the defendant did not notify the Secretary of[*623] State of its purported change of address. Under these circumstances, we infer that the defendant deliberately attempted to avoid notice of this action and, therefore, relief under CPLR 317 is unavailable (see, Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S. Purch. Serv., 126 AD2d 621, 622; Lawrence v Esplanade Gardens, 213 AD2d 216; Kaplan v D’Agostino Supermarkets, 210 AD2d 79; Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v International 800 Telecom Corp., 190 AD2d 538). Additionally, the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts in support of the motion to establish a meritorious defense (see, Halali v Gabbay, 223 AD2d 623; Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v International 800 Telecom Corp., supra).

In addition, the defendant did not have a reasonable excuse for its default, which would warrant vacatur of the default judgment under CPLR 5015 (a). It is well settled that “a corporate defendant’s failure to receive copies of process served upon the Secretary of State due to a breach of its obligation to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State does not constitute a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint” (Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S. Purchas. Serv., supra, at 622; Lawrence v Esplanade Gardens, supra; Kaplan v D’Agostino Supermarkets, supra; Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v International 800 Telecom Corp., supra). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.