2014-2744 K C. REDSTONE GARAGE CORP., res, v. NEW BREED AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AUTOMOTIVE AND NEW BREED AUTO SALES, ALSO KNOWN AS NEW BREED AUTO SALES, INC., AND NEW BREED AUTO COLLISION, INC., tent -AND- DARI AUTO REPAIR, LLC, FLEET SAFETY CO., INC., CREATIVE AUTO REPAIRS, CREATIVE AUTO REPAIRS, INC., EXPRESS PACKAGE, LLC, DANIEL ROSENBLUM, SK TECH AUTO, SK TECH, INC., SERGE “DOE”, SIMON “DOE”, ARYEH KLEIN, TAMARA KLEIN, BOOKY “DOE”, “JOHN DOE” AND “JANE DOE”, und -AND- STAR SUPPLIES & MAINT., INC., app — Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered November 18, 2014. The order denied a motion by Star Supplies & Maint., Inc. to vacate so much of a default final judgment and warrant as were against it, and to dismiss so much of the petition as was against it, or for alternative relief.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and the motion by Star Supplies & Maint., Inc. to vacate so much of the default final judgment and warrant as were against it, and to dismiss so much of the petition as was against it, is granted. In December 2013, landlord commenced this commercial holdover proceeding to recover a building located in Brooklyn, New York. The petition listed New Breed Auto Sales, also Known as New Breed Auto Sales, Inc., New Breed Automotive, Inc. (New Breed), and New Breed Auto Collision Inc. as tenants-respondents (collectively tenants). The petition also listed 14 undertenants-respondents, including “XYZ Corp.” (collectively undertenants). The proceeding was commenced following the service of a 30-day notice on tenants, since New Breed had become a month-to-month tenant upon the expiration of its lease agreement. “XYZ Corp.” and several other undertenants failed to appear or answer, and, in March 2014, an inquest was held, after which landlord was awarded, among other things, a final judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction against “XYZ Corp.” At the inquest, upon application by landlord’s attorney, the Civil Court amended the petition to substitute Star Supplies & Maint., Inc. (Star) for “XYZ Corp.” Thereafter, Star moved to, among other things, vacate so much of the default final judgment and warrant as were entered against it, and to dismiss so much of the petition as was against it. Star argued, among other things, that the court had no jurisdiction over it since it was “neither named nor served with process,” and landlord had been aware prior to the commencement of the proceeding that Star occupied the premises. By order entered November 18, 2014, the Civil Court denied Star’s motion on the ground that Star had failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense to the proceeding.
