Panlilio v Fisher

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Panlilio v Fisher 2012 NY Slip Op 33025(U) December 18, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 103778/12 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON I212012012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY INDEX rm. MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 t o wcrc read on this motion t d f o r ~PAPERS NUMBERED e of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits ... ering Affidavits - Exhibits - -- eplying Affidavits ,/i 1 Vd${,I/>?- ~ .* .J ,., . N I 1 ,/ L DISPOSITION C3 c SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. ] J.S. C. I NON-FINAL DISPOSITION I:? REFERENCE ri SETTEE ORDER/ JUDG. [* 2] Plaintiff, INLIEX NO. IO3778/12 -against- r . ...... I cornplaint for lack of pcrsonal jurisdiction, lack of adccluate scrvicc 01 procoss aiid failure to state a cause of action. Dcfendant also moves for an order pursuaiit to 22 N YCTZIt $216.1 to remove the complaint from thc court record in this action and placc it undci~ scal, to seal the papers filed on this motion, and to seal all other papers iilcd in this action. PILiiiiiiK,who js pro se, opposes dismissal, but does not opposc sealing the rccord. The motion to dismiss thc complaint is denicd :IS prcmaturc. On o r iibout September 24, 2012, defendant filed the instant order to show cause to ciisiniss tlic coin plaint, which this court signcd on Octobcr 3, 2012. Plaintif~l cornmcnced action on Sc$c~nbcr 13, 2012, when she this filed the summons and complaint and purchased an incicx nrirnbcr. I urs1imt to C. I LR 306-b, service of the summons and complaint shall bc made withill one J i i ~ i i ~ I r ~ d twcrity days after the commencement of the action Ha-c, the 120 clay pcrjod for scrving clc-l ciicl:int cloes not expirc until 120 days aftcr the September 13, 2012 comnencciiient ofthc x t i o i 1 , which is January 11, 2013. Thus, since plaintiff still has time to servc dckcndmt propcrly in ;iccord;iivx with CPLR 1 [* 3] 308, defendant s motion to dismiss based on iiiipropcr scrvicc is p r c n ~ t m . Zee Rink v. Fulnenzi, 231 AD2d 562 (2 IdDcpt 1996); Gelbard v Northlicld S:I\~l~i!~Lsk , 216 AD2d 267 Ihn (2ndDept 1995); WU/I,II 36 Midlmd, JLTL3 y. Levinson, 25 Misc3cf I I 4 1 4 (Sup C:t, Nassau Co 2009); 21 9 Siegcl s Prac Rev 4 (201 0). Plaintiff admits that slic simply mailcd the siiiii~iio~is and complui tit to dclkndant by certified mail return rcccipt rcquestcd, t o his l loridn addrcss, which is irisuilicicnt to effectuate scrvice pursuant to CPLIZ 308. Def cndant submits m i afllchvit that lit is a rctircd businessman, he is a LLresidcnl ofthe State oi llorida, his liorne is in l aliii B c x h Florida, and he does not havc any residence or oflicc in thc Stak ofNe\v Yorh . IJndcr CI)I,lC 313, the same methods used to servc process on a del cndant located in Neu York must :dso be used when service is made outsidc Ncw York. Morcenthau v. Avi_on 1:csourcc.r - j ,I L d1 NY.?d 383, 389 (2008). CPLR 308 governs service on natural pcrsons, and uiiclcr tliiit provision, plaintiff may serve defendant by dclivering thc suiiimons and complaint to dcli.iitiatit in pcrso~i. CPLK 30&( 1). As an alternative to personal dclivcry, plaintill niay del ivcr t tic swi111101is complaint to a arid person of suitable age and discrotion at del cndant s actual placc of biisiticxi, dwelling place or usual place of abode, and tlicn mailing the siiinmotis a i d complaint to clol cndnnt at his last know residence or actual place of business. CN,K 30S(2). If scrvicc cannot with due diligence be madc by eitlrlcr thc personal delivery nicthod 01 the clcl ivcry n r z d mail method described abovc, plaintifl may use the affix and mail nicthod p r o v i d d l or in CPLR 308(4). Undcr 308(4), the summons and complaint are affiscd to thc door ol cithcr defendant s actual place of business, actual dwelling place or usual place of abode, 2 :i!id tlicti iuailcd to either [* 4] defendant's last known rcsicicnce or actual place of busirrcss. As noted above, plain1ilfhas until Janiiary 1 1 , 20 13 t o scrvc cic!i.nciant by the foregoing methods provided for in CPLR 308. In the cvcnt phititillis unnblc !o w v z clcfcntlant by those methods by thc January 1 1, 2013 deadlitic, shc may ask thc court for adilitional tirnc to do so by making motion under CP1,II 306-b, which authorizes the court to c ~ l c n i thc 1itiic fbr service l upon good cause shown or iti thc intercst oi justice. 1 Iowcver, C ) E ~ C {Iic I,?O-clay pcriod has C expircd, plaintiff may renew his motion to dismiss. I ti 111c al>senccoi propcr scrvicc and personal jurisdiction over dclendant, thc court at this juncturc canriot coiisiclcr tlic additional grounds for dismissal raiscd iii dcfe~idmt s motion. The motion for an ordcr sealing the rccord is clcnicd. Scction 2 I O . 1 (a) of tlic Uniform Rules of Trial Court directs tlint 1 clxcept where othcrwisc providrcl 175 stnttite c)r rule, a court shall not entcr an ordcr in m y action or procecdiiig scaling Ihc couit I-ccords,whctlier in whole or in part, except upon a writtcn fiiiding of gooti cause, whicli shall spccify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good causc has been shown, tlic court shall concicicr [hc interest of the public as wcll as of the parties. 22 NYCIW ij 216.l(n); 1,iapakis v. S~llliv;~~, AD2d 393 290 (1 Dept 2002); In re Will of JIofli-~~an!n, h D 2 d 02, 93 ( 1 Jkpl 200 I ) ; I_lrlnco T,aboratories, 284 Ltd. v. Chemical Works of (;&on Ricllter I,td., 274 AD2d 1 , X (1 I l u p t 2000). Although good cause is a statidard that is cliflicult to ck1ii;c in ahsolute tcrrns, a sealing order should rcst on a sound basis or lcgitimatc neccl to tnkc jiidicial x t i o n , Danco Laboratories Ltd. v. Chcmicnl Works of Gctlcon R i c I i t ~ ~SLJ~I.:!d ~(quoting Coopersmith v. ~ , Gold, 156 Misc2d 594 [Sup C t, IIockland C o 195121, prcsupposing f h 1 compclling circumstances must be showii by thc party scckiiig to huve tlic rccoi CIS sc;ilc.d. < uuixrsrnith v. 3 [* 5] Gold, supra at 606. Confidcntiality is clcnrly thc cxccption. not tllc n~lc, 11 i-c Will of 1 I-bf fnan, supra at 94, and thc presumption of opcnncss o f coLirt rccoicls rcm;iins in the absence of compelling circuiiistanccs Ior secrecy, Coopcrsmith v. Gold, sutx! at 606. Here defendant fails t o riiakc a suffficicnt showing of goocl c;iusc to wnrrant a scaling order in this action. His assertions as to thc nccd to protcct his p r i v x y , ancl to prcvcnt plaintiff from using this action to cnibarrass him and cxtract ;i scttlemcnt arc not pcr-su:isivc, in view of the presumption that judicial proceedings arc opcii to the piiblic and Ihc p ~ s swllcss compelling , 263 L I M reasons far closure are prcsentcd. Sec Anoiwiiious v. A I ~ O I ~ Y I ~ ~ OA D S , 341, 341-342 (I Dept 2000); Herald Co, Inc. v Wcisenbcrg, 89 h D 2 d 224,226 (41hJ k p t lC)S?), al l d 59 NY2d 378 (1983); Mcrrick v, Merrick, 154 Misc2d 559, 562 (Sup (7, c o 1 !I%),190 AD2d NY afl d 516 (1 Dncpt 1992). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that dcfcndant s motion to dismiss is dcnicti, witlioiit preJidice to rcnewal upon expiration of the 120-day period; and it is further ORDERED that dcf endant s motion t o seal thc rccold is dciiiccl. DATED: December /q , 2012 F I W fEI: : 4

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.