Blam v. Netcher
| Decision Date | 18 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-06899. |
| Citation | 17 A.D.3d 495,2005 NY Slip Op 02986,793 N.Y.S.2d 464 |
| Parties | WHITNEY BLAM, Respondent, v. INGER NETCHER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In support of her motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon her default in answering, the plaintiff failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Goodman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2 AD3d 581 [2003]; Drake v Drake, 296 AD2d 566 [2002]; Parratta v McAllister, 283 AD2d 625 [2001]). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion should have been denied, with leave to renew on proper papers (see Henriquez v Purins, 245 AD2d 337, 338 [1997]).
The appeal from so much of the order as denied the defendant's request for leave to serve a late answer is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order denying a motion not made on notice (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]), and we decline to grant leave. We note that in the absence of a cross motion the Supreme Court should not have considered the defendant's informal request for an extension of time to answer (see CPLR 2215; Siegel, NY Prac § 249, at 403 [3d ed]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanyo v. Buffalo Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc.
...denying the request is not appealable as of right, and permission to appeal is necessary (see CPLR 5701 [c] ; Blam v. Netcher, 17 A.D.3d 495, 496, 793 N.Y.S.2d 464 [2d Dept. 2005] ). By contrast, generally, a party may appeal as of right to challenge the disposition of a motion or cross mot......
-
Heidari v. First Advance Funding Corp., 2007 NY Slip Op 32895(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/21/2007), 0004878/2007
...See, New York State Div. of Human Rights v. Oceanside Cove II Apartment Corp., 39 A.D.3d 608 (2nd Dept. 2007); Blam v. Netcher, 17 A.D.3d 495 (2nd Dept. 2005); Myung Chun v. North American Mortgage Co. 285 A.D.2d 42 (1st Dept. 2001); CPLR 2215; Siegel, N.Y. Prac. § 249, at 403 [3d ed.] .(se......
-
Lawrence v. Kennedy
...of counsel as a species of relief sought in their respective notices of cross motion (CPLR 2215 see generally, Blam v. Netcher, 17 A.D.3d 495, 496, 793 N.Y.S.2d 464). In any event, the defendants have not carried their “heavy burden” on a motion to disqualify an opposing counsel ( S & S Hot......
-
Bank of N.Y. v. Mulligan
...[ Emphasis added ]. Plaintiff BNY failed to submit “proof of the facts” in “an affidavit made by the party.” (Blam v. Netcher, 17 A.D.3d 495, 496, 793 N.Y.S.2d 464 [2d Dept 2005]; Goodman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. 2 A.D.3d 581, 768 N.Y.S.2d 365[2d Dept 2003]; Drake v. Drake, 29......