From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Levi v. Oberlander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1988
144 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

November 21, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).


Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motions are denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, the applicant is required to file proof of service of the summons and complaint and proof by affidavit made by the party of the facts constituting the claim (see, CPLR 3215).

A review of the record indicates that plaintiff failed to show that the defendants were properly before the court by virtue of the plaintiff's effecting valid service of a summons and complaint upon them (cf., Freccia v. Carullo, 93 A.D.2d 281; Cashman v. Rea, 126 A.D.2d 511). Absent such proof, no default judgment may be entered (see, Nemetsky v. Banque Developpment, 59 A.D.2d 527, affd 48 N.Y.2d 962).

In addition, the plaintiff failed to submit the requisite proof of the facts constituting the claim by affidavit or complaint verified by a person with knowledge of those facts (see, Joosten v. Gale, 129 A.D.2d 531; Colonial Country Club v. Village of Ellenville, 89 A.D.2d 935). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Kunzeman and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Levi v. Oberlander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1988
144 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Levi v. Oberlander

Case Details

Full title:MAYER LEVI, Respondent, v. SANDOR OBERLANDER et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 21, 1988

Citations

144 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Widman v. Turner

"On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, the movant is required to submit…

Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co.

This principle is illustrated by reference to similar instances in which a defendant may be prohibited from…