Levi v. Oberlander

144 A.D.2d 546, 535 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11941
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 546 (Levi v. Oberlander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Levi v. Oberlander, 144 A.D.2d 546, 535 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties to certain moneys held in escrow, the defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 23, 1987, which granted the plaintiffs motion for a leave to enter a default judgment unless the defendants’ attorney personally pays to the plaintiff a sanction in the amount of $500, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated October 5, 1987, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer, for leave to enter a default judgment unconditionally, and for an assessment of damages.

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

[547]*547On 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 plaintiffs effecting valid service of a summons and complaint upon them (cf, Freccia v Canillo, 93 AD2d 281; Cashman v Rea, 126 AD2d 511). Absent such proof, no default judgment may be entered (see, Nemetsky v Banque Developpment, 59 AD2d 527, affd 48 NY2d 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 AD2d 531; Colonial Country Club v Village of Ellenville, 89 AD2d 935). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kunzeman and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Widman v. Turner
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins.
114 A.D.3d 33 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance v. Wellington
42 Misc. 3d 270 (Nassau County District Court, 2013)
Mathew v. Mosier
15 Misc. 3d 397 (Rochester City Court, 2007)
Daniels v. King Chicken & Stuff, Inc.
35 A.D.3d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
James v. Caraballo
283 A.D.2d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Mullins v. DiLorenzo
199 A.D.2d 218 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 A.D.2d 546, 535 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levi-v-oberlander-nyappdiv-1988.