Landmark Capital Invs., Inc. v. Li-Shan Wang

• Decision Date: 03 April 2012
• Parties: LANDMARK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. LI–SHAN WANG, Defendant–Appellant,Innovation Datatronics Corporation, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02430
94 A.D.3d 418
941 N.Y.S.2d 144

LANDMARK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
LI–SHAN WANG, Defendant–Appellant,Innovation Datatronics Corporation, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

April 3, 2012.

[941 N.Y.S.2d 144]

David S. Friedberg, New York, for appellant.

Daniel S. Roshco, P.C., New York (Daniel S. Roshco of counsel), respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.

[94 A.D.3d 418] 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 Referee), entered December 22, 2010, which awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees in the total amount

[941 N.Y.S.2d 145]

of $21,489.60, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the finding that defendant Wang (defendant) was properly served. The detailed description of the service attempts on defendant and of the interior of defendant's building supported the determination that the process server was credible. Although the process server was under investigation for improper record keeping by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the relevant portions of the record support the finding that his version of facts was accurate ( cf. Matter of Barr v. Department of Consumer Affairs of City of N.Y., 70 N.Y.2d 821, 523 N.Y.S.2d 435, 517 N.E.2d 1321 [1987] ).

Plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter [94 A.D.3d 419] of law by relying in part on the original loan file prepared by its assignor. Plaintiff relied on these records in its regular course of its business ( see Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Trataros Constr., Inc., 30 A.D.3d 336, 337, 819 N.Y.S.2d 223 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 715, 826 N.Y.S.2d 180, 859 N.E.2d 920 [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 by New York debtors, this, as an activity carried on by an Ohio company with no offices or employees in New York, is not sufficient to constitute doing business under section 1312 ( see Beltone Elecs. Corp. v. Selbst, 58 A.D.2d 560, 396 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1977] ).

Defendant also failed to raise a triable issue on her defense of fraudulent inducement....