Opinion
2013-05227, 2013-10990
06-17-2015
Richard (Ricardo) CORDERO, appellant, v. Viviana BARREIRO–CORDERO, et al., defendants.
Richard Cordero, suing herein as Richard (Ricardo) Cordero, Bronx, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Richard Cordero, suing herein as Richard (Ricardo) Cordero, Bronx, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Opinion In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sweeney, J.), dated March 11, 2013, which denied his unopposed motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court dated August 16, 2013, which denied his motion for leave to reargue his motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint. ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 16, 2013, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further, ORDERED that the order dated March 11, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint. The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the acknowledgment of receipt forms provided for in CPLR 312–a(d) were completed and mailed or delivered to him (see CPLR 312–a[b] ; Castillo v. JFK Medport, Inc., 116 A.D.3d 899, 900, 983 N.Y.S.2d 866 ; Klein v. Educational Loan Servicing, LLC, 71 A.D.3d 957, 958, 897 N.Y.S.2d 220 ; Dominguez v. Stimpson Mfg. Corp., 207 A.D.2d 375, 616 N.Y.S.2d 221 ). Adequate proof that a defendant was properly served with process is a prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment against that defendant (see CPLR 3215[f] ; Todd v. Green, 122 A.D.3d 831, 831–832, 997 N.Y.S.2d 155 ). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, a letter written by the defendants' attorney was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff effected service of process upon the defendants in accordance with the requirements of CPLR 312–a.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.