| 308 E. 49, LLC v K.T. Corp. U.S.A. |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 51281(U) [77 Misc 3d 1215(A)] |
| Decided on December 15, 2022 |
| Supreme Court, New York County |
| Lebovits, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
308 East 49,
LLC and SABIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiffs,
against K.T. Corporation U.S.A. and KATSUYUKI KUROSU, Defendants. |
In this action on a commercial lease and guarantee, plaintiffs 308 East 49, LLC and Sabin Holdings LLC (collectively, landlord) move without opposition for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against defendant-guarantor Katsuyuki Kurosu.[FN1] The motion is denied and the action is dismissed as against Kurosu for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service.
A plaintiff seeking default judgment must establish proper service, defendant's default, and the facts constituting plaintiff's claim. Landlord cannot establish proper service. Kurosu's guarantee, executed in 2005, waived his right to personal service under the CPLR. (NYSCEF No. 13 at 3.) It provided that landlord could instead serve process on him by simultaneous mailings (one certified mail, the other prepaid first-class mail) directed to a specified Manhattan apartment address. (Id.) But landlord has not shown that it properly served Kurosu at that address. The record reflects that landlord's attempt to serve Kurosu there by personal service was unsuccessful: Landlord's process server executed an affidavit indicating that upon attempting to effect service, he was informed by building security that no one by that name lived in the building, and that no one had lived in the specified apartment for nearly a year. (NYSCEF No. 8.)
The affirmation of landlord's counsel states that at some unspecified time, landlord also mailed the summons and complaint to the address given in the guarantee (attaching pictures of the envelopes). (NYSCEF No. 10 at ¶ 18 [affirmation]; NYSCEF No. 18 [envelopes].) But it is not clear from counsel's affirmation whether he himself conducted this mailing; or, if not, whether his statement is otherwise based on personal knowledge. Landlord's motion papers do not include an affidavit of service with respect to the mailing made to the New York address. The pictures of the envelopes do not themselves contain any indication of their contents—nor any dates. In any event, counsel states in his affirmation that the envelopes "were returned to Plaintiff's counsel's office by the United States Postal Service."[FN2] (NYSCEF No. 10 at ¶ 18.)
Given the failure of service at the New York address, the affirmation of landlord's counsel also relies on a mailing of the summons and complaint, by the means specified in the guarantee, to a Hawaii address at which landlord had located Kurosu.[FN3] (NYSCEF No. 10 at ¶¶ [*2]19-20.) As with the New York mailing, though, counsel's affirmation does not indicate the basis for his knowledge that process was sent to the Hawaii address. (See id.) Nor do the certified-mail receipt and tracking information provided by landlord indicate what was sent to that address. (See NYSCEF No. 19). Additionally, the mailing occurred in March 2022 (see NYSCEF No. 10 at ¶ 20), well outside the 120-day period set by CPLR 306-b. Landlord has not (then or now) sought leave to extend the time for service retroactively. And, all else aside, the fact remains that Kurosu's guarantee did not consent to service of process by mail directed to an address in Hawaii.
To be sure, that Kurosu apparently vacated the service address given in the guarantee, without notifying landlord or updating the guarantee, left landlord in a difficult position. But landlord could have sought an order from this court permitting expedient service under CPLR 308 (5) by some other means or directed to some other address. Landlord did not do so. Absent proper service, this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Kurosu.[FN4]
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that landlord's motion for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against defendant Kurosu is denied, and the action is dismissed as against Kurosu for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service (no costs); and it is further
ORDERED that landlord serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on defendant K.T. Corporation, U.S.A.; on defendant Kurosu by certified mail, return receipt requested directed to his last-known address; and on the office of the County Clerk, which shall enter judgment accordingly.
12/15/2022