The following papers numbered 1 to 2 were read on this motion:

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment in its favor in this $40,784.92 collection case involving shipping costs for fish. [*2]According to a document that plaintiff calls a "statement of account," all of the outstanding invoices are from 2021. The invoices only appear to state "Oceanbox" on them, instead of a full corporate name.

In opposition, defendant submits an affirmation from its principal, Mitchell Slavin. Mr. Slavin states that he is a principal of two similarly-named, yet separate companies: Oceanbox Wholesale LLC ("Wholesale"), defendant herein, a company which sells fish wholesale to corporate accounts. He states that Wholesale does not have an account with plaintiff (and did not even exist at the time that the other company, Oceanbox E-Commerce Corp. ("E-Commerce") entered into an agreement with plaintiff). E-Commerce is a company which sells directly to consumers and ships via Fedex and other carriers. E-Commerce does have an account with plaintiff. Yet it is not named as a defendant herein. Mr. Slavin further states that even if plaintiff had named the correct defendant, it would still not be entitled to summary judgment because there were multiple problems with the shipments in question.

Plaintiff filed the summons and complaint back in 2023. It is thus too late for it to serve the correct defendant in this matter. CPLR § 306-b. Accordingly, the action is dismissed, without prejudice.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.^[FN1]