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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
