Justice Barbara Jaffe

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Defendants were alleged of engaging in fraudulent and illegal conduct, deceptive acts or practices and false advertising regarding their business of placing people into positions of security, among others. They were further accused of proffering worthless training courses and unlicensed career services. Plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin defendants from operating the employment agency, without a license, and directing full monetary restitution and disgorgement of all profits from their fraudulent acts. The court, however, found that plaintiff’s affidavits of service on defendants appeared to be problematic, and noted that individual defendant Paulino’s admission that papers were received did not constitute an admission of service of process. The court found plaintiff failed to serve Paulino by personal, in-hand delivery, but via substitute service on a receptionist at an alleged place of business and, to his alleged stepmother at an address his father lived. It concluded as plaintiff failed to serve Paulion as required by an order to show cause, it did not establish personal jurisdiction over him. Nor was sufficient proof established that the corporation was served properly and personally. Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment was denied.

Justice Barbara Jaffe

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Defendants were alleged of engaging in fraudulent and illegal conduct, deceptive acts or practices and false advertising regarding their business of placing people into positions of security, among others. They were further accused of proffering worthless training courses and unlicensed career services. Plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin defendants from operating the employment agency, without a license, and directing full monetary restitution and disgorgement of all profits from their fraudulent acts. The court, however, found that plaintiff’s affidavits of service on defendants appeared to be problematic, and noted that individual defendant Paulino’s admission that papers were received did not constitute an admission of service of process. The court found plaintiff failed to serve Paulino by personal, in-hand delivery, but via substitute service on a receptionist at an alleged place of business and, to his alleged stepmother at an address his father lived. It concluded as plaintiff failed to serve Paulion as required by an order to show cause, it did not establish personal jurisdiction over him. Nor was sufficient proof established that the corporation was served properly and personally. Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment was denied.