NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
November 17, 2009
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, EAGLE ONE ROOFING CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered August 18, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, McGuire, Acosta, Roman, JJ.
With respect to defendants Marriott International, Inc. and Execustay Corporation, both purportedly served pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306, plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment was properly denied for lack of proof of compliance with CPLR 3215(g)(4)(i) (see Rafa Enters. v Pigand Mgt. Corp., 184 AD2d 329 [1st Dept 1992]; accord Ocuto Blacktop & Paving Co. v Trataros Constr., 277 AD2d 919 [4th Dept 2000]; Schilling v Maren Enters., 302 AD2d 375, 376 [2d Dept 2003]). With respect to defendant Marriott Execustay, purportedly served pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 307, plaintiff's motion for a default judgment was properly denied for lack of evidence rebutting defendants' assertion that Marriott Execustay is not a legal entity capable of being sued but a trademark registered to Marriott International, Inc. (cf. Stewart v Volkswagen of Am., 81 NY2d 203, 207  [once questioned, burden of proving jurisdiction is on plaintiff]). We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them unavailing.
M-4693 - Admiral Insurance Company v Marriott Motion seeking to consolidate appeals denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.