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 ...
Alleged Defamatory Statements Must be Of and Concerning Plaintiffs
Posted on October 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Prove Defamation the Statement Must be Of and Concerning the Plaintiffs
Post 4867
In Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 04-25-00519-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio (October 14, 2026) Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu appealed from the trial court’s granting of a traditional motion for summary judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) on their defamation claim.
BACKGROUND
Moloney and Cantu sued USAA for defamation, alleging that they are the principals of Informed Roofing & Restoration, LLC (“Informed Roofing”), which is primarily engaged in the residential roofing repair and replacement business, and that an employee or agent of USAA had made false and defamatory statements to the San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) concerning them.
Specifically, Moloney and Cantu alleged that an employee of ...
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 20 Subscribe to ZIFL here https://lnkd.in/gfpn78FM
Posted on October 15, 2026 by Barry Zalma
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud.
ZIFL is published 24 times a year is written by Barry Zalma.
It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at https://lnkd.in/gVT5G9s
Six Insane Fraud Schemes the Trump Administration Has Uncovered Stealing from the taxpayer has now become a multi-billion-dollar industry in America. Obamacare has been a magnet for scammers.
Florida Insurance Agent Pleads Guilty in $300,000 Premium Finance Scheme
Daniel Raney, 41, who managed Raney Insurance and Raney Ventures in Pensacola, was arrested after AFCO Direct.
RIFE WITH FRAUD ALLOWS DEMANDS TO ESTABLISH RESTITUTION
Six Insane Fraud Schemes the Trump Administration Has Uncovered
Stealing from the taxpayer has now become a multi-billion-dollar industry in America – and the ...
Sentence for Stealing from Veterans Administration Reasonably Considers State Insurance Fraud & Arson Convictions
Post 4863
Posted on October 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In United States Of America v. Anthony Curtis Brewer, No. 26-10745, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 8, 2026) Anthony Curtis Brewer became the fiduciary for an incapacitated recipient of Department of Veterans Affairs survivor benefits and agreed to use her funds solely for her care and support without commingling them with his own.
The VA determined that he misused $67,232.33 and removed him as fiduciary in 2022. Brewer pleaded guilty to theft of more than $1,000 in government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. At sentencing, the district court attributed $53,567 in loss to him, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months.
Citing the victim’s vulnerability, Brewer’s attempts to avoid responsibility, and his other fraudulent conduct — including state convictions for arson and insurance fraud — the court ...
