On December 22, 2022, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Lam Group v. Anthony T. Rinaldi LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 51302(U), holding that failure to comply with CPLR 3215’s service rules required denial of a motion for default judgment, explaining:
CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i) and (ii) . . . requires:
(i) When a default judgment based upon non-appearance is sought against a domestic or authorized foreign corporation which has been served pursuant to paragraph (b) of section three hundred six of the business corporation law, an affidavit shall be submitted that an additional service of the summons by first class mail has been made upon the defendant corporation at its last known address at least twenty days before the entry of judgment.
(ii) The additional service of the summons by mail may be made simultaneously with or after the service of the summons on the defendant corporation pursuant to paragraph (b) of section three hundred six of the business corporation law and shall be accompanied by a notice to the corporation that service is being made or has been made pursuant to that provision. An affidavit of mailing pursuant to this paragraph shall be executed by the person mailing the summons and shall be filed with the judgment. Where there has been compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, failure of the defendant corporation to receive the additional service of summons and notice provided for by this paragraph shall not preclude the entry of default judgment.
Here, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they provided Bayport and NAA with additional service of the summons and complaint as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i). An affidavit of service sworn to on February 10, 2022, shows that Bayport, a domestic corporation with its principal place of business in New York, was served with process by service on the Secretary of State at 99 Washington Ave, Albany, New York.
Similarly, an affidavit of service sworn to on February 10, 2022, shows that NAA, a domestic corporation with its principal place of business in New York, was served with process by service on the Secretary of State at 99 Washington Ave, Albany, New York.
This court finds that initial service upon Bayport and NAA is in conformity with CPLR 311 (a) (1) and Business Corporation Law § 306 (b). However, plaintiffs did not provide proof of additional service upon Bayport and NAA as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i). Although plaintiffs attached a certificate of service indicating that a copy of the respective motions for default judgment were mailed to Bayport and NAA via certified mail, plaintiffs’ motions for default judgment do not indicate that plaintiffs mailed Bayport and NAA a copy of the summons and verified complaint by first-class mail as required by CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i).
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).