Full text
Iwanska v. Sturm
Iwanska v Sturm 2025 NY Slip Op 34403(U) November 18, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 520247/2025 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 10:40 AM INDEX NO. 520247/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025 f
At an IAS Commercial Part 12 of the Supreme Court of the 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 18 th day of November 2025.
PRES E T: Honorable Reginald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------x
DOMINIK.A IW ANS KA, Individually and as Member and Manager of Charlie Arthur Dog Care LLC and as a Member and Manager of Arthur Charlie Dog Care LLC,
Plaintiff, Index No. 520247/2025
-against- Cal. 12 MS 1
ADAM STURM and STURM, INC. , Decision and Order
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. MS 1 4-11, 16-19
Plaintiffs motion for a default judgment is decided as follows:
Background
This action arises out of plaintiffs allegations that her 50% business partner defendant
Adam Sturm ( Mr. Sturm ) and his company Sturm, Inc. ("Sturm") breached their fiduciary
duties, duties of care contractual obligations, and duty of loyalty in connection with two jointly
owned dog-daycare LLCs. Plaintiff moves for a default judgment seeking orders expelling
defendants from both LLCs, cancelling all of their membership interests, and referring the matter
to an inquest on damages. Plaintiff asserts that defendants were properly served, received the
required CPLR 32 l 5(g)(3) additional mailings and failed to appear or answer. Plaintiff further [* 1] 1 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10:40 AM INDEX NO. 520247/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025
asserts that defendants abandoned their obligations to the LLCs, concealed financial and
operational infom1ation, usurped LLC business opportunities, and opened a competing dog-
daycare using the LLCs' design, pricing, and intellectual property, causing substantial harm and
warranting the requested relief.
In opposition, defendants argue the motion should be denied because service was improper:
plaintiff allegedly failed to complete the mailing required under CPLR 308(4), and defendants only
found the papers after returning from Florida where Mr. Sturm had been caring for his ailing
parents. Defendants contend that they acted promptly upon learning of the lawsuit, caused no
prejudice to plaintiff, and have meritorious defenses, including that Sturm actively contributed to
the business, that plaintiff's allegations are false and motivated by post-d ivorce hostilities, and that
plaintiff herself obstructed Sturm and created a hostile workplace.
In reply, plaintiff argues that service of process was proper, as evidenced by the affidavit
of service documenting three prior attempts, valid CPLR 308(4) nail-and-mail service, and a July
17, 2025 mailing marked 'personal and confidential," followed by additional CPLR 3215(g)(3)
mailings on September 10 and October 2. Plaintiff notes that service on Sturm via the Secretary
of State is uncontested, and asserts that defendants have shown no excusable neglect and remain
in default, having neither served an answer nor sought an extension of time to serve an answer.
Plaintiff requests that the Court grant default judgment or, alternatively, set a firm deadline for
defendants to answer.
Discussion
"To defeat a facially adequate CPLR 3215 motion, a defendant must show either that there
was no default, or that it has a reasonable excuse for its delay and a potentially meritorious defense"
(Fried v Jacob Holding, Inc., 110 AD3d 56 60 [2d Dept 2013] [citations omitted]). "Whether a
proffered excuse is reasonable is a sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all 2
[* 2] 2 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10:40 AM INDEX NO. 520247/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025
relevant factors including the extent of the delay whether there has been prejudice to the oppo ing
party whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases
on the merits" (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, although plaintiff attempted personal service on three different dates, those dates
were three consecutive days: July 14, 15, and 16, 2025 (see NYSCEF Doc No. 8). The process
server's affidavit reflects that no person of suitable age or discretion was present on any of those
three attempts. Mr. Sturm's sworn affirmation, stating that he spent extended periods in Florida
managing the healthcare of his seriously ill parents during this timeframe, lends credibility to the
assertion that he was not present at the New York residence during the days service was attempted.
After plaintiffs mid-July service efforts and additional CPLR 3215(g)(3) mailings,
plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 24 2025. Defendants appeared and filed detailed
opposition papers on November 5, 2025, less than two weeks later, demonstrating prompt action
upon actual notice of the lawsuit and the absence of willful default.
Considering the short duration of the delay, plaintiffs failure to demonstrate any prejudice,
and ew York's strong public policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits, particularly in
a case presenting substantial factual issues and significant requested relief, the Court concludes
that defendants have shown both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious
defense. Accordingly, the motion for a default judgment is denied.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs motion for default judgment is denied. It is further
ORDERED that defendants shall serve and file an Answer or otherwise respond to the verified
complaint within 30 days of entry of this Decision and Order.
3 [* 3] 3 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2025 10:40 AM INDEX NO. 520247/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2025
. Any argument not explicitly addressed herein was considered and deemed to be without
merit or unnecessary to address given the court' s determination.
ENTER:
Honorable Reginald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court .ON. REGINALD A. BODDIE J.S.C.
4 [* 4] 4 of 4