On November 19, 2025, Justice Boddie of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Horizon Paper Co., Inc. v. Stellar Print., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 34401(U), entering a default judgment against a corporation that failed to engage replacement counsel, explaining:
On the merits, we begin our analysis with the proposition that parties as a rule may prosecute or defend their own civil actions, but corporations can appear only by attorney. When the party to an action is a fictional person-a legal entity with limited liability-the general rule is that it cannot represent itself but must be represented by a licensed practitioner, whether outside counsel or staff counsel, answerable to the court and other parties for his or her own conduct in the matter.
Defendants’ violation of their duty to retain counsel in light of their corporate status has impeded the court’s efforts to see to it that the instant action proceed apace, resulting in a substantial delay in this proceeding. For illustration purposes, a review of the record establishes that Defendants failed to appear at a June 24, 2025 status conference. as reflected in the Conference Order issued by the court in the wake of the conference:
After a conference held today, it is hereby agreed and ordered as follows:
Defendants failed to appear and failed to obtain new counsel.
Plaintiff indicated that it intends to move to strike the answer and for a default judgment.
Notwithstanding Defendants’ violation of their court-ordered duty to retain new counsel within 30 days of the date of entry of the court’s April 10, 2025 Decision and Order granting Defendants’ then-counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, the court exercised flexibility by scheduling a conference on June 24, 2025 to give Defendants another opportunity to retain new counsel. Despite the court’s efforts to encourage Defendants to retain new counsel by scheduling the June 24, 2025 conference, Defendants (i) failed to retain new counsel in violation of their duties under the April 10, 2025 Decision and Order and (ii) no one affiliated with Defendants appeared during the June 24, 2025 conference to inform the court that Defendants were endeavoring to retain new counsel. Further undermining the court’s ability to see to it that this matter proceed in a timely fashion, Defendants’ violation of their duty to retain counsel in light of their corporate status has predictably led Defendants to violate their discovery duties, such as their court-ordered duty set forth in the December 19, 2024 Conference Order to produce the outstanding discovery responses by January 10, 2025 or a Jackson affidavit.
Likewise, Defendants’ failure to adhere with their duty to retain counsel has led Defendants to fail to schedule court-ordered examinations before trial, in violation of the court’s December 19, 2024 Conference Order, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
After a conference held today, it is hereby agreed and ordered as follows:
Depositions shall be held in-person as follows:
Stellar 1/27, 10 AM
Horizon 2/13, 10 AMIn short, Defendants’ violation of their duty to retain counsel for over seven months since the court granted Defendants’ then-counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw by order dated April 10, 2025 has resulted in this action remaining in stasis for over seven months, notwithstanding the court’s efforts to encourage Defendants to retain new counsel. Consistent with their laissez faire approach to this matter, Defendants opted not to submit an opposition to Horizon’s instant motion as reflected in the NYSCEF database.
In light of Defendants’ failure to retain new counsel to represent them, despite having had ample time and opportunity to do so since the April 10, 2025 withdrawal of their outgoing counsel, a default judgment is appropriate, lest corporate defendants be encouraged unduly to prolong cases by failing to retain counsel.
It is indeed well settled that a corporate entity is subject to a default judgment where, as here, such entity’s counsel has withdrawn, and the corporate entity subsequently fails to appear through new incoming counsel.
Further weighing in favor of granting a default judgment, despite having been afforded ample opportunity by the court to retain counsel since the April 10, 2025 withdrawal of their counsel, Defendants have obdurately refused to retain counsel in contravention of CPLR 321(a), leaving the court with no alternative but to hold that a default judgment is appropriate.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).