So a plaintiff obtains a default judgment against a defendant on a promissory note case. Defendant fails to appear or defend. On a motion to enter the default pursuant to CPLR 3215, one would assume that without opposition, judgment would be entered for the amount of the loans. Interestingly, t
hat’s not quite what happened
My colleague Adam Rafsky’s astute post last week on Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich’s recent reminder regarding the importance of proper service and claim viability when seeking a default judgment under CPLR 3215 reminded me of another default decision last fall from the same judge also addressing issues of service.
Default judgments are merely rubber-stamped when defendant fails to appear and/or answer, right? Wrong, as the New York County Commercial Division’s recent decision in Gutterman v. Stark (Hon. Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.) reminds us. In Gutterman, a case arising from plaintiff’s failed investment in a would-be ambulatory care surgical facility, the plaintiff purportedly