Horizon Paper Co., Inc. v. Stellar Print., Inc.

Horizon Paper Co., Inc. v Stellar Print., Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 34401(U) November 19, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 512050/2024 Judge: Reginald A. Boddie Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10: 39 AM] INDEX NO. 512050/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025

At an IAS Commercial Part 12 of the Supreme Court ofthe State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York on the 19th day of November 202 5.

PRES ENT: Honorable Reginald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------x HORIZON PAPER CO., INC., Index No. 512050/2024 Plaintiff, Cal. No. 4 MS 3 -against- Decision and Order STELLAR PRINTING, INC., STELLAR PRINTING NY, INC., STELLAR PRINTING USA, INC., and STELLAR PRINTING AI, INC.,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. MS3 49-63

Plaintiff Horizon Paper Co., Inc. ("Horizon") has interposed a motion (motion sequence 3)

pursuant to CPLR 3126 for an order granting Horizon leave to enter a default judgment against

defendants Stellar Printing, Inc., Stellar Printing NY, Inc., Stellar Printing USA, Inc. and Stellar

Printing AL Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). striking Defendants' answer and affirmative

defenses, or, in the alternative, precluding Defendants from presenting evidence and testimony in

support of their answer and affirmative defenses (see NYSCEF Doc No. 49, notice of motion, i1,r

[i], [ii], [iii]).

Horizon sells paper products to a variety of industries throughout the United States (see

NYSCEF Doc No. 51, complaint, ,r 8). Defendants operate a commercial printing company that

1 [* 1] 1 of 6

[FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10: 39 AM] INDEX NO. 512050/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025

requires specific sizes of papers to meet the demands of its customers (id. 19). On April 29, 2021,

Horizon and Defendants entered into a Buyer's Program Agreement with respect to Horizon's so-

called "Hibrites" line of products, pursuant to which Horizon agreed to stock Defendants'

warehouse with paper goods in quantities, quality and sizes ordered by Defendants (id. 1 10).

Horizon instituted the present action to recover payments for paper goods it allegedly sold

and delivered to Defendants during the period ranging from June 5, 2023 to November 15, 2023

(id. 1 1). Horizon alleges that during the subject time frame, Defendants ordered, accepted and

retained the delivery of paper supplied by Horizon pursuant to mutually agreed-upon pricing terms,

without objection (id.). Horizon asserts that it regularly sent invoices to Defendants for the orders

that were delivered and that, to date, notwithstanding Defendants' promises of payment in response

to numerous demands emanating from Horizon, the invoices remain unpaid (id.). Horizon claims

that it is entitled to the sum of no less than $666,272.74 from Defendants, together with incidental

damages, costs, fees and interest, for the paper goods Defendants accepted and retained without

payment (id.).

A review of the record reveals that on April 10, 2025, the court granted as follows

Defendants' then-counsel's motion for leave to withdraw as counsel:

The motion is granted. Daniel Friedman, Esq. is hereby relieved as counsel for the "Stellar Defendants." The case is hereby stayed for 30 days from the date of entry of this order for Defendants to retain new counsel.

(NYSCEF Doc No. 43, Decision and Order, p. 1).

Although the court granted Defendants a 30-day stay to retain new counsel in the April I 0,

2025 Decision and Order, a review of the case file on NYSCEF reveals that, to date, Defendants

have not retained new counsel more than seven months after the court issued the April 10, 2025

2 [* 2] 2 of 6

[FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10: 39 AM] INDEX NO. 512050/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025

Decision and Order. Defendants' failure to retain new counsel is in violation of their statutory

duty to retain counsel in light of their status as corporate entities. As mandated pursuant to CPLR

321 (a): "A party ... may prosecute or defend a civil action in person or by attorney, except that

a corporation or voluntary association shall appear by attorney." The Court of Appeals has

articulated as follows the rationale underlying the prohibition on corporate entities appearing as

pro se litigants:

On the merits, we begin our analysis with the proposition that parties as a rule may prosecute or defend their own civil actions, but corporations can appear only by attorney (CPLR 321 [a] ). When the party to an action is a fictional person-a legal entity with limited liability-the general rule is that it cannot represent itself but must be represented by a licensed pract1t10ner, whether outside counsel or staff counsel, answerable to the court and other parties for his or her own conduct in the matter.

(Matter of Sharon B.. 72 NY2d 394, 397-398 [1988]; accord Michael Reilly Design, Inc. v

Houraney, 40 AD3d 592, 593-594 [2d Dept 2007] [Second Department held that a corporation

may only be represented by an attorney and not by one of its members who is not an attorney

admitted to practice in the state of New York]).

Defendants' violation of their duty to retain counsel in light of their corporate status has

impeded the court's efforts to see to it that the instant action proceed apace, resulting in a

substantial delay in this proceeding. For illustration purposes, a review of the record establishes

that Defendants failed to appear at a June 24, 2025 status conference. as reflected in the Conference

Order issued by the court in the wake of the conference:

After a conference held today, it is hereby agreed and ordered as follows:

Defendants failed to appear and failed to obtain new counsel. Plaintiff indicated that it intends to move to strike the answer and for a default judgment.

3 [* 3] 3 of 6

[FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10: 39 AM] INDEX NO. 512050/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025

(NYSCEF Doc No. 48, Conference Order, p. 1).

Notwithstanding Defendants' violation of their court-ordered duty to retain new counsel

within 30 days of the date of entry of the court's April 10, 2025 Decision and Order granting

Defendants' then-counsel's motion for leave to withdraw, the court exercised flexibility by

scheduling a conference on June 24, 2025 to give Defendants another opportunity to retain new

counsel (see NYSCEF Doc No. 48, Conference Order, p. 1). Despite the court's efforts to

encourage Defendants to retain new counsel by scheduling the June 24, 2025 conference,

Defendants (i) failed to retain new counsel in violation of their duties under the April 10, 2025

Decision and Order (id.) and (ii) no one affiliated with Defendants appeared during the June 24,

2025 conference to inform the court that Defendants were endeavoring to retain new counsel (id.)

Further undermining the court's ability to see to it that this matter proceed in a timely

fashion, Defendants' violation of their duty to retain counsel in light of their corporate status has

predictably led Defendants to violate their discovery duties, such as their court-ordered duty set

forth in the December 19, 2024 Conference Order to ··produce the outstanding discovery responses

by January 10, [2025} or a Jackson affidavit" (see NYSCEF Doc No. 18, Conference Order, p. I).

Likewise, Defendants' failure to adhere with their duty to retain counsel has led Defendants to fail

to schedule court-ordered examinations before trial, in violation of the court's December 19, 2024

Conference Order, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

After a conference held today, it is hereby agreed and ordered as follows:

• • * *

Depositions shall be held in-person as follows: Stellar 1/27, 10 AM Horizon 2/13, 10 AM

4 [* 4] 4 of 6

[FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10: 39 AM] INDEX NO. 512050/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025

Any depositions not held shall be deemed waived.

(NYSCEF Doc No. 18, Conference Order, ,r 2).

In short, Defendants' violation of their duty to retain counsel for over seven months since

the court granted Defendants' then-counsel's motion for leave to withdraw by order dated April

10, 2025 (see NYSCEF Doc No. 43) has resulted in this action remaining in stasis for over seven

months, notwithstanding the court's efforts to encourage Defendants to retain new counsel.

Consistent with their laissez faire approach to this matter, Defendants opted not to submit

an opposition to Horizon's instant motion as reflected in the NYSCEF database.

In light of Defendants' failure to retain new counsel to represent them, despite having had

ample time and opportunity to do so since the April 10, 2025 withdrawal of their outgoing counsel,

a default judgment is appropriate, lest corporate defendants be encouraged unduly to prolong cases

by failing to retain counsel (see Seidler v Knopf, 153 AD3d 874, 875 [2d Dept 2017] [default

judgment issued against corporate defendants where the corporate defendants failed to retain

counsel in violation of CPLR 321 (a)J).

It is indeed well settled that a corporate entity is subject to a default judgment where, as

here, such entity's counsel has withdrawn, and the corporate entity subsequently fails to appear

through new incoming counsel (see Jimenez v Brenillee Corp .. 48 AD3d 351,352 [1st Dept 2008]

[court held that a corporate defendant which is not represented by counsel constitutes a default

permitting entry of judgment against it since CPLR 321 is designed to "ensure that the corporation

has a licensed representative who is answerable to the court and other parties for his or her own

conduct in the matter"] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Further weighing in favor of granting a default judgment, despite having been afforded

ample opportunity by the court to retain counsel since the April 10, 2025 withdrawal of their

⁵

[FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10: 39 AM] INDEX NO. 512050/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025

Footnotes

[5] of 6 [* 5] counsel, Defendants have obdurately refused to retain counsel in contravention of CPLR 321 (a), leaving the court with no alternative but to hold that a default judgment is appropriate. Based on the foregoing, Horizon's motion for an order granting Horizon leave to enter a default judgment against Defendants is hereby granted (motion sequence 3). Any relief not expressly addressed herein has been considered and is denied. ENTER: HonoraQro.ginald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court HON. REGINALD A. BODDIE J.S.C. 6 [* 6] 6 of 6