Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v Bueno

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v Bueno 2018 NY Slip Op 31257(U) June 18, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 450877/2017 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2018 1] INDEX NO. 450877/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. KATHRYNE. FREED IAS MOTION 2 INDEX NO. 450877/2017 Justice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X THE TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, MOTION DATE 05/19/2018 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -vNILENDY BUENO, DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - DEFAULT Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the motion is granted. This action is brought by the Tri borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority ("TBT A") against defendant Maria Curtis to collect unpaid tolls, violations and late fees under the Public Authorities Law and TBTA Regulations. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, Nilendy Bueno aka Nilendy A. Bueno, was the owner of a vehicle or vehicles which crossed the Henry Hudson Bridge, a bridge in New York City under the TBT A's jurisdiction, committed 455 separate toll violations from March 9, 2013 until January 19, 2016 by crossing the said bridge with an invalid E-Z Pass tag, and failed to make timely payments in response to the toll invoices sent to defendant under the TBTA's Tolls by Mail program. As a result, the TBTA alleges that defendant owes it a total of$25,242.78, consisting of $2434.50 in unpaid tolls, $22,755.00 for unpaid violations and late fees and $53.28 negative on defendant's E-Z Pass account. 1 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2018 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 INDEX NO. 450877/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2018 Plaintiff annexes to its motion a copy of the Summons and Verified Complaint with an Affidavit of Service (NYSCEF Docs. Nos. 1 and 4). The complaint is verified by Richard Kent Ellison a Collection Counsel for the TBTA. Id. Also annexed to the Summons and Verified ' Complaint is a copy of the TBTA's "Violation Citation Detail" sheets listing every date on which defendant's vehicle crossed the Henry Hudson Bridge without paying the toll. Id. The instant motion for a default judgment was filed on or about February 20, 2018. In support of the motion, plaintiff submits, inter alia, an Affidavit of Non-Military Service and an Affidavit of a second mailing of the Summons and Verified Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215. In an Affirmation in Support, sworn to on July 19, 2017, plaintiff, through its attorney, Michael Sledzinski, Esq., an associate of the Law Offices of Peter C. Merani, P.C., avers that defendant's time to answer the Complaint has expired and defendant has not appeared or pleaded thereunder. Plaintiff therefore urges that it is entitled to a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215. Conclusions of Law: CPLR 3215(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[w]hen a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial..., the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against him." It is well settled that "[o ]n a motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, the movant is required to submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting party's default in answering or appearing." Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v RJN.J Servs. Inc., 89 AD3d 649, 651 (2d Dept 2011). Moreover, a default in answering the complaint is deemed to be an admission of all factual statements contained in the complaint 2 2 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2018 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 INDEX NO. 450877/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2018 and all reasonable inferences that flow from them. See Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 63 (2003). In the case at bar, the TBT A has submitted an affidavit of service establishing that defendant was served with the Summons and Verified Complaint. The TBT A also established that it served defendant with an additional copy of the Summons and Verified Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 and that defendant was not in the military. _The Verified Complaint sets forth the facts constituting the claim and the affirmation of the TBTA's attorney establishes that defendant has defaulted. Therefore, the TBT A has established that it is entitled to a judgment against defendant in the total sum of $25,242.78, the amount demanded in this action. Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the motion by plaintiff Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority for a default judgment against defendant Nilendy Bueno aka Nilendy A. Bueno, is granted in the amount of $25,242.78; and it is further, ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and against defendant Nilendy Bueno aka Nilendy A. Bueno in the amount of $25,242. 78; and it is further 3 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2018 4] INDEX NO. 450877/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2018 ORDERED that plaintiff Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority shall serve a copy of this order on defendant Nilendy Bueno aka Nilendy A. Bueno, and on the Trial Support Office at 60 Centre Street (Room 158); and it is further, ORDERED that this constitutes the decision and order of this Court. 6/15/2018 DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D DENIED APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 4 of 4 ~ NON-F L DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D D OTHER REFERENCE

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.