A recent ruling by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has reversed a default judgment involving a property dispute between Alejandro Castro and John C. Castro. The court's decision, made on May 27, 2026, has significant implications for the parties involved and the legal process regarding property ownership claims.
The case, known as Castro v. Castro (Docket No. 2024-00863), centers around a disagreement over the ownership of a property located in Floral Park, New York. Alejandro Castro, the plaintiff, claimed he contributed $310,000 toward the purchase of the property based on the understanding that he and John C. Castro, the defendant, would be equal owners. However, John C. Castro, an attorney, allegedly purchased the property solely in his name without acknowledging Alejandro's financial contribution or interest.
This dispute began in May 2018 when Alejandro Castro filed a lawsuit under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) to quiet title to the property. The legal action sought to clarify ownership rights and assert Alejandro's claim as a 50% owner of the property. The case eventually reached the Appellate Division after a series of motions and rulings in lower courts.
Initially, in December 2019, the Supreme Court granted a default judgment against John C. Castro after he failed to respond to the lawsuit. This judgment declared Alejandro Castro as a co-owner of the property and ordered that the deed be reformed to reflect his ownership interest. However, John C. Castro later sought to vacate this judgment, arguing that he had not been properly served with the lawsuit.
On October 31, 2023, the Supreme Court denied John C. Castro's motion to vacate the default judgment, leading to his appeal. The Appellate Division's recent ruling addressed this appeal and focused on the service of process issues that arose during the initial lawsuit.
The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the process server acted with due diligence before resorting to alternative service methods. According to the court, “The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received.” The court found that the process server had made only two attempts to serve John C. Castro personally and did not make genuine inquiries about his whereabouts or place of business, which is required under the law.
As a result, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting John C. Castro's motion to vacate the default judgment. The court stated, “Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order and judgment.” The ruling emphasized the importance of proper service in legal proceedings and the necessity for plaintiffs to follow the established protocols for notifying defendants of lawsuits.
This decision has significant implications for both parties. For John C. Castro, the ruling allows him to contest the claims made by Alejandro Castro regarding ownership of the property. It also opens the door for further proceedings in the lower court, where the merits of Alejandro's cross-motion to extend the time for service will be considered. If that motion is denied, the court will then address John C. Castro's motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of jurisdiction.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future property disputes involving claims of ownership and the requirements for proper service of legal documents. It highlights the critical nature of following procedural rules in civil litigation, particularly in cases involving significant financial interests.
Looking ahead, the case will return to the Supreme Court in Queens County for further proceedings. The court will need to determine whether Alejandro Castro's request for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint is valid. If the court denies this request, it will then consider John C. Castro's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
As the legal process continues, both parties will likely prepare for the next steps in this ongoing property dispute. The ruling by the Appellate Division serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in property ownership claims and the necessity for all parties to adhere to legal protocols.