Exxon Mobil Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Exxon Mobil Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection 2019 NY Slip Op 33847(U) January 28, 2019 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 1228/2018 Judge: Robert J. McDonald 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. [* 1] 122812018 COPY OF OROER W/NOTICE OF ENTRY WITH AFFT OF SVC Page 2 ol 7 Ptgt IC SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK CIVIL TERM - IAS PART 34 - QUEENS COUNTY 25-10 COURT SQUARE, LON~ ISLAND CITY, N.Y. 11101 P R E S E N T HON. ROBERT J, MCDONALD Justice - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - x In the Matter of Index No. : 1228/2018 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Motion Date: l / 24/19 Petitioner, For Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules Motion No.: 9 Motion Seq.: 2 - against NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and VINCENT SAPIENZA, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Respondents . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x The following papers numbered l to 8 read on this Order to Show Cause by respondents for an Order , inter alia, vacating the default Order and Judgment entered against respondents: Papers Nu!Dbered Order to Show Cause - Affirmation-Exhibits . .... . ...... . .. 1 - 4 Affirmation in Opposition-Exhibits-Memo . of Law ... . . . .. 5 - 8 Petitioner commenced this proceeding on February 13, 2018 for a Freedom of Information Law request for documents concerning, inter alia, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) determination that a public drinking water treatment facility, known as Station 6, no longer needs to be built. The Petition was granted on default . A Judgment was entered on November 21, 2018 . Respondents now seek to vacate the Judgment. 1 Pf'IMtd: 2'4n011 Prinled 1131/2020 [* 2] 1Wl/2018 COP'f OF ORDER W/NOTICE OF ENTRY WITH AFFT OF SVC Poge 3 ol 7 When the movants seek to vacate a judgment entered on default raise a jurisdictional objection, as here, the court is required to resolve the jurisdiction question in determining whether to vacate the judgment (see Canelas v Flores, 112 AD3d 87 (2d Dept. 2013); Roberts v Anka , 45 AD3d 752 [2nd Dept. 2007]). ~rt is axiomatic that the failure to serve process in an action leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void" (Emigrant Mtge. Co .. Inc. v Westervelt, 105 AD3d 896 [2d Dept. 2013), quoting Krisilas v Mount Sinai Hosp., 63 AD3d 887[2d Dept 2009)). Thus , under CPLR SOlS(a) (4), a default judgment must be vacated once a movant demonstrates lack of personal jurisdiction (see Hossain v Fab Cab Corp., 57 AD3d 484 [2d Dept. 2008)) . The process server's affidavit of service dated February 20, 2018, states that the Notice of Petition and Veri fied Petition were served on February 14, 2018 upon Vincent Sapienza, Commissioner , c / o NYCDEP at 59-17 Junction Boulevard, 19th Floor , Flushing, NY 11373 by personally delivering such with the Attorney, Sharon Lewis William, a person of suitable age and discretion, at Mr. Sapienza's actual place of business . On February 16, 2018, a copy was served upon Vincent Sapienza, Commissioner by first class mail to NYCDEP at 59-17 Junction Boulevard, 19th Floor, Flushing , NY 11373. Respondent DEP was also served on February 14, 2018 , by personally delivering the notice of petition and verified petition to Sharon Lewis William, who informed the process server that she holds the position of Attorney with DEP and is authorized by appointment to receive service at 59-17 Junction Boulevard, 19th Floor , Flushing, NY 11373. Respondents now contend that the above service on DEP was improper because CPLR 31l(a) (2) requires service upon the City of New York through Corporation Counsel. However, CPLR 3ll(a) (2) also permits service upon the City of New York to any person designated to receive process in a writing filed in the office of the Clerk of New York County. DEP does not dispute that Sharon Lewis William represented herself to be an attorney authorized to accept service on behalf of DEP. Moreover, Sharon Lewis William does not submit an affidavit contending that she was not served with process. Additionally, respondents do not contest service upon Vincent Sapienza. Accordingly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over both respondents. Respondents also seek to vacate the Judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 based upon a reasonable excuse for the default and potentially meritorious opposition to the petiton (see Dokai y 2 PMted 1/3112020 [* 3] 1221112019 COPY Of ORDER W/NOTICE OF ENTRY WITH AFFT OF SVC Pago4ol7 11'6'~11 UHUtKtJOW MtHT OfHl!SfUSPONOENTS APPUCATJOtf AND VACATES STAY IN OTSC OATEO t/lll9 Pegt l c Rws;ton Tower Ltd. Partnership, 91 AD3d 812 [2d Dept. 2012]; I<aramuco v Cohen, 90 AD3d 998 (2d Dept . 2011]; Donovan v Chiapetta, 72 AD3d 635 [2d Dept . 2010] ). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's sound discretion, and if no reasonable excuse is found, the court need not consider whether meritorious opposition was sufficiently shown (see Diaz v Ralph, 66 AD3d 819 [2d Dept. 2009); Tribeca Lending Corp. v Correa, 92 AD3d 770 , 771 (2d Dept. 2012]; Maida v Leasing ' s Rest . Serve .. Inc,, 80 AD3d 732 , 733 [2d Dept . 2011 ] ) . As a reasonable excuse for the default, counsel for respondents , Marilyn Richter, submits an affirmation stating that she has a vague recollection of having read an email from an attorney containing an electronic copy of the notice of petition and petition . She intended to reopen the email at a later time , and to have the notice of petition and petition printed out and then entered into the case management system as a new case and assigned to an Assistant Corporati on Counsel . Unfortunately , she did not set a reminder to do so and forgot to reopen the email at a later time. Ms . Richter further affirms that her negligence was inadvertent. The next time she received any notice c oncerning this case was on December 12 , 2018 , when counsel at DEP electronically transmitted a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment. A claim of law o f f ice failure must be supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue (see Neilson v 6D Farm Corp . , 123 AD3d 676 [2d Dept. 2014 ] ; Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v Charles , 103 AD3d 683 [2d Dept. 2013]; .H.c..ru;:y v Kuveke, 9 AD3d 476 [2d Dept . 2004 ]). A conclusory, undetailed , and uncorroborated allegation of law off ice failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Aurora Loan Services . LLC v Lucero , 131 AD3d 496 (2d Dept. 2 015] ; Campbell-Jaryi s v Alyea , 68 AD3d 701 [2d Dept. 2009); Forward Door of N. Y., Inc . y Forlader, 41 AD3d 535 (2d Dept . 2007 ]) . Moreover , where the record demonstrates a pattern of default or neglect, the de fault should be considered intentional , and , therefore, not excus able {see Eretz Funding v Shalash Assoc ., 266 AD2d 184 [2d Dep t . 1999) ; Carmody v 208-210 E. 31st Realty, LLC 25 NYS3d 14 (let Dept . 2016)) . This Court finds that respondents' claim of law office failure is insuff i cient to establish a reasonable excuse (see Abdu l y Hirschfield, 71 AD3d 707 [2d Dept . 2010 ] (finding that forgetfulness is not a reasonable excuse] ; Perez v New York City Hous. Auth . , 47 AD3d 505 (ltt Dept, 2008 ] [finding t hat the overbooking of cases and inability to keep track of appearances does not constit ute a reasonable excuse] ; Ortega v Bisogno & 3 Printed 113112020 [* 4] 1228/2011 COPY Of ORDER WINOTICE Of ENTRY WITHAFFT Of SVC P1ge 5 ol 7 • 1228/2018 ORDfllJJUOCMU<T OENl!S ll!SPONOENTS' Al'PUCAl10N AHO VACATES STAYINOTSC CWED l/l/19 PIOI. I ..... Meyerson, 38 AD3d 510 (2d Dept . 200?]. Additionally, this Court notes that respondents admit to missing two statutory deadlines in responding to petitioner's FOIL request and 'appeal. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above , it is hereby ORDERED, that respond~nts ' application is deni ed in its entiretyi and it is further ORDERED, that the stay contained in the Emergency Order to Show Cause dated January 3, 2019 is vacated. Dated: Long Island City, N.Y. January 28, 2019 ROBERT J.s.c. ~!L!.tJ & RECORDED JAN 3 1 2019 COUNTY CLERK QUEENS COUNTY 4 Printed: 113112020

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.