UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
August 20, 2010
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
EDWIN YEPEZ, FAIRWAY ESTATES AT FAMINGDALE CONTRACTING CORP., FAIRWAY ESTATES AT FARMINGDALE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FIARWAY ESTATES AT FARMINGDALE, LLC, DAVINCI CONSTRUCTION OF NASSAU, INC., D/B/A DAVINCI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND DAVINCI CONSTRUCTION OF NEW YORK, INC., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Spatt, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
On May 7, 2009, the plaintiff Essex Insurance Company filed the present case, seeking to disclaim liability for an alleged construction accident that allegedly involved the defendants, one or more of whom hold an insurance contract with the plaintiff. All of the named defendants then appeared and answered except for Edwin Yepez; Fairway Estates at Farmingdale Homeowners; and DaVinci Construction of Nassau, Inc. ("DaVinvi Nassau"). At a subsequent Local Rule 56.1 conference held on May 19, 2010 in which all appearing parties participated, the appearing parties indicated that they agreed that the plaintiff was not liable for damages connected to the alleged construction accident at issue in the complaint.
The Court therefore directed the plaintiff to submit to the Court a consent judgment to this effect, and stated that the Court would endorse the consent judgment, provided that none of the non-appearing defendants objected to the consent judgment within thirty days of its submission.
On June 14, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a consent judgment as described, and on June 22, 2010, Donna Cipoletti, the president of DaVinci Nassau, submitted a letter to the Court objecting to the consent judgment. On July 1, 2010 the Court docketed a letter to DaVinci Nassau, indicating that a corporate person such as DaVinci Nassau was required to appear by counsel. The letter also provided an additional deadline for DiVinci Nassau to retain counsel if it sought to object to the consent judgment. On August 2, 2010, the Court received a subsequent letter from Donna Cipoletti of DaVinci Nassau, indicating that (1) DaVinci Nassau had not timely received the Court's letter of July 1, 2010, and (2) DaVinci Nassau still sought to object to the consent judgment, but had no funds to retain an attorney.
In light of this most recent letter and the prior proceedings in this case, the Court determines that it will permit DaVinci Nassau to appear before the Court in this case through a non-attorney officer or director. Further, DaVinci Nassau is granted until Friday, September 3, 2010 to file with the Court an answer in this case. If DaVinci Nassau has not filed an answer by that time, the Court will entertain a motion for a default judgment by the plaintiff against DaVinci Nassau.
ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.