Argudo v. 808 Lex Restaurant

Background

The filing states that counsel had been retained to represent defendants 808 Lex Restaurant, LLC, Terrence Lowenberg, and Todd Cohen. Counsel reported that a motion for entry of default judgment was pending against all defendants and asked the court to deny it, permit the defendants to defend the action, and allow them until November 20, 2025, to respond to the complaint. In the alternative, counsel requested until November 12, 2025, to oppose the default-judgment motion.

Counsel stated that Lowenberg and Cohen denied being served with the complaint. Regarding Cohen, counsel disputed an affidavit stating that a coworker accepted service at an address identified as Cohen’s place of business. Counsel stated that the address was Cohen’s home, that no coworker was there to accept service, and that Cohen first learned of the matter when he received the notice of motion for default judgment. Regarding Lowenberg, counsel stated that he did not receive notice through the doorman identified in the service affidavit or receive the complaint by mail.

Counsel also stated that 808 Lex Restaurant appeared to have been served through the New York Secretary of State on August 11, 2025, but that the restaurant had ceased operations around July 31, 2025, and did not receive notice of the service.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the pending motion for entry of a default judgment, identified as ECF No. 33, was denied as moot. The court ordered the defendants to respond to the complaint on or before November 20, 2025. The order did not state whether service was valid, resolve the parties’ factual disputes about service, or decide the merits of the complaint.