Katims v DaimlerChrysler Corp.
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 26, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-1618 S C.
Sanford Katims, Appellant,
against
DaimlerChrysler Corp. and Daimlerchrysler Motors Company, LLC, Respondents, -and- Huntington Jeep Chrysler, Inc., Defendant.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (Patrick J. Barton, J.), dated May 31, 2006. The order granted the motion of defendants DaimlerChrysler Corp. and DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC to vacate a default judgment entered against them pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4), and dismissed the action.
Order affirmed without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff sought $4,264.53 for breach of contract or warranty, alleging that defendants DaimlerChrysler Corp. and DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC (jointly referred to as "DaimlerChrysler") and defendant Huntington Jeep Chrysler, Inc. ("the dealership") provided him with a "warranty booklet and owners [sic] manual for car with incorrect information - causing plaintiff to incur cost of repairs which actually were covered expenses." The defendants were served by mail by the Clerk of the Court at the address of the dealership. In a decision after trial by Judge C. Steven Hackeling (officially reported at 9 Misc 3d 503 [2005]), the action against the dealership was dismissed and a default judgment was entered against DaimlerChrysler. Thereafter, DaimlerChrysler moved for an order vacating the [*2]default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4), based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, which motion was granted, and the instant appeal ensued.
UDCA 1801 defines a "small claim" as "any cause of action for money only not in excess of five thousand dollars . . . provided that the defendant either resides, or has an office for the transaction of business or a regular employment, within a district of the court in the county." In a small claims action, the defendant must be served by the clerk of the court "by ordinary first class mail and certified mail with return receipt requested . . . at his residence, if he resides within a district of the court in the county, and his residence is known to the claimant, or at his office or place of regular employment within such a district if he does not reside therein or his residence within such a district is not known to the claimant" (UDCA 1803 [a]).
In the instant action, process was served upon DaimlerChrysler at the address of defendant dealership. It is plaintiff's contention that service was proper because the dealership was DaimlerChrysler's "office for the transaction of business" (by reference to the definition of "conducting business" as used in UDCA 1813) or its "actual place of business" (by reference to the definition of "actual place of business" as used in CPLR 308 [6]). However, in view of the fact that those statutes specifically state that the application of the definitions therein is limited to those sections, plaintiff's argument lacks merit.
Notwithstanding the fact that DaimlerChrysler may have had actual notice of the action, since service of process did not comport with the requirements of UDCA 1803 (a), personal jurisdiction was not properly obtained over DaimlerChrysler. Thus, the default judgment was a nullity (see DeMartino v Rivera, 148 AD2d 568 [1989]), and the court below did not err in vacating said judgment and dismissing the action.
We note in passing that where a defendant seeks to vacate a default judgment based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction, the defendant need not demonstrate a
reasonable excuse for the default or a meritorious defense (see European Am. Bank & Trust Co. v Serota, 242 AD2d 363 [1997]).
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 26, 2007
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
