From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francisco v. Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

September 6, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), entered on or about January 17, 2001, which denied defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment, entered on or about October 10, 2000, which had set the matter down for an inquest, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted and the default judgment vacated on condition that defendants pay plaintiff $500 in costs within 20 days of the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, and thereafter serve an answer within 30 days of such payment. If the foregoing conditions are not met, the order is affirmed.

Brian J. Isaac, for plaintiff-respondent.

Marshall D. Sweetbaum, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe, JJ.


The motion court erred when, without any elaboration, it entered judgment by default against defendants as plaintiff, in support of his motion, failed to submit a verified complaint, or an affidavit executed by a party with personal knowledge of the merits of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the judgment is a nullity (CPLR 3215[f]; Wolf v. 3540 Rochambeau Assocs., 234 A.D.2d 6; Feffer v. Malpeso, 210 A.D.2d 60;Income Prop. Consultants v. Lumat Rlty. Corp., 88 A.D.2d 582), and we further find that the foregoing could not be cured by testimony at the inquest on the issue of damages (Wolf v. 3540 Rochambeau Assocs., supra, at 7; Gerhardt v. JR Salacqua Contr. Co., 181 A.D.2d 719, 720).

We impose costs upon defendants, however, as the result of their failure to timely answer the complaint and their delay in moving to vacate the default judgment.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Francisco v. Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Francisco v. Soto

Case Details

Full title:AUGUSTO FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OSCAR SOTO, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Sep 6, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 889

Citing Cases

Velocity Invs., LLC v. McCaffrey

The proof Velocity submitted in support of its application to enter a default judgment failed to establish…

Velocity Investments v. Brian Mccaffrey

The proof Velocity submitted in support of its application to enter a default judgment failed to establish…