| Landmark Capital Invs., Inc. v Li-Shan Wang |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02430 [94 AD3d 418] |
| April 3, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Landmark Capital Investments, Inc.,Respondent, v Li-Shan Wang, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Daniel S. Roshco, P.C., New York (Daniel S. Roshco of counsel), respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered December 22,2010, awarding plaintiff the total amount of $69,211.12, unanimously affirmed, with costs.Judgment, same court (Louis Crespo, Special Ref.), entered December 22, 2010, which awardedplaintiff attorneys' fees in the total amount of $21,489.60, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The record supports the finding that defendant Wang (defendant) was properly served. Thedetailed description of the service attempts on defendant and of the interior of defendant'sbuilding supported the determination that the process server was credible. Although the processserver was under investigation for improper record keeping by the Department of ConsumerAffairs, the relevant portions of the record support the finding that his version of facts wasaccurate (cf. Matter of Barr v Department of Consumer Affairs of City of N.Y., 70 NY2d821 [1987]).
Plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by relying in part onthe original loan file prepared by its assignor. Plaintiff relied on these records in its regularcourse of its business (see Merrill LynchBus. Fin. Servs. Inc. v Trataros Constr., Inc., 30 AD3d 336, 337 [2006], lv denied7 NY3d 715 [2006]). Defendant failed to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was"doing business in this state without authority," which, under Business Corporation Law §1312 (a), would preclude it from bringing suit. Although plaintiff often purchased debt held byNew York debtors, this, as an activity carried on by an Ohio company with no offices oremployees in New York, is not sufficient to constitute doing business under section 1312 (seeBeltone Elecs. Corp. v Selbst, 58 AD2d 560 [1977]).
Defendant also failed to raise a triable issue on her defense of fraudulent inducement.Defendant did not allege any misstatement by the maker of the loan. Rather, she asserted that shesigned the guaranty without knowing what it was, which does not constitute a defense (seeImero Fiorentino Assoc. v Green, 85 AD2d 419, 420 [1982]). Nor [*2]did the court abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff to make asecond summary judgment motion correcting certain defects, where that motion clearly enhancedjudicial efficiency (see Detko v McDonald's Rests. of N.Y., 198 AD2d 208, 209 [1993],lv denied 83 NY2d 752 [1994]).
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Friedman, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.