Plaintiff May Try Again to get a Judgment
Posted on May 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Just Because a Defendant Defaults Evidence is Needed to get a Judgment
Even on a Default Motion the Plaintiff Must Do More Than Rely on Conclusory Allegations.
Post number 5356
The Commissioners Of The State Insurance Fund v. Capcon Construction Industries Corp., Capcon Construction Supply Corp., Jab Masonry Corp., Agra Masonry Inc., Agra Industries Usa Corp, A & A Masonry Corp., Alexander Shvartsberg, Darren Caputo, Maryann Furman, Index No. 452680/2024, MOTION SEQ. No. 003, 2026 NY Slip Op 31767(U), Supreme Court, New York County (April 20, 2026)
FACTS
The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) had already obtained two judgments for unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums: one against A\&A Masonry Corp. and another, much larger one, against Agra Masonry Inc. SIF then brought this action against several related corporations and individuals, alleging that they all operated as a single de facto enterprise and that assets had been diverted to avoid collection of the Agra Masonry judgment.
As relevant to this motion, Agra Industries USA Corp. and A\&A Masonry Corp. did not answer the complaint. SIF moved for a default judgment against those two defendants on three claims:
Alter ego liability for the Agra Masonry judgment,
Attorneys’ fees and expenses under DCL § 276-a and/or State Finance Law § 18(5), and
Treble damages for insurance fraud under Workers’ Compensation Law § 96(2).
Although the motion was filed five days after the one-year deadline under CPLR 3215(c), SIF argued that the delay was minimal and that it had continuously litigated the case against the other defendants.
LAW
Under CPLR 3215, a plaintiff seeking a default judgment must provide proof of:
service of the summons and complaint,
the facts constituting the claim, and
the defendant’s default.
A default motion must generally be made within one year of the default, unless sufficient cause is shown for the delay.
To establish the “facts constituting the claim,” the plaintiff need only show enough facts to demonstrate a viable cause of action, but there still must be some firsthand evidentiary basis. A verified complaint can suffice if properly supported, but allegations made merely “on information and belief” without identified sources are often inadequate.
DISCUSSION
The court found that service and default were established. It also exercised its discretion to overlook the five-day lateness of the motion because the delay was de minimis, non-prejudicial, and the record showed that SIF had remained active in the litigation rather than abandoning its claims.
However, the court held that SIF failed to prove the facts constituting the claim. The alter ego allegations in the verified complaint were mostly based on information and belief and lacked sufficiently specific factual support or reliable sources. The verification by SIF’s legal collections director referred broadly to SIF records and communications, but the court found that too vague to satisfy the evidentiary burden for default judgment on alter ego liability.
Because the claims for attorneys’ fees and treble damages were pleaded as dependent on proving alter ego liability, those claims also failed once the first cause of action was found insufficiently supported.
The key issue was not timeliness, because the court was willing to excuse a slight delay. The decisive problem was proof. Even on a default motion, the plaintiff must do more than rely on conclusory allegations. Where alter ego liability is asserted, courts expect some concrete evidence of domination, commingling, misuse of the corporate form, or asset diversion.
CONCLUSION
The court denied SIF’s motion for default judgment without prejudice to renew. Although service was proper, the defendants defaulted, and the late filing was excused, SIF did not provide sufficient proof of the facts constituting its alter ego claim. As a result, the related claims for attorneys’ fees and treble damages also failed.
ZALMA OPINION
Most people, and many lawyers, believe that when a defendant defaults, it is an admission that the facts and charges made in the complaint was enough for a judgment. They are wrong. The Plaintiff must present convincing evidence before a judgment can be entered. The Plaintiff can try again because the order was made without prejudice.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
