Henriquez v. Purins
| Decision Date | 08 December 1997 |
| Citation | 666 N.Y.S.2d 190,245 A.D.2d 337 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,560 Giezi Simei HENRIQUEZ, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bruno PURINS, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Jose A. Mendoza, et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gold & Wachtel, L.L.P., New York City (Jeffrey T. Strauss, of counsel), for third-party defendants-appellants.
Gerard J. Marulli, New York City (Glen T. Pewarski, of counsel), for third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Before PIZZUTO, J.P., and SANTUCCI, JOY and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for negligence, the third-party defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (De Maro, J.), dated July 10, 1996, which granted the third-party plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the third-party defendants' default in answering the third-party complaint and denied their cross application for leave to interpose an answer.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted the third-party plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed.
CPLR 3215(f) provides in pertinent part as follows:
(emphasis added).
It is undisputed that the third-party plaintiff, Bruno Purins, failed to submit an affidavit of facts in conjunction with his motion for leave to enter a default judgment under CPLR 3215. It is also undisputed that at the time the complaint was served upon the third-party defendants, it was not verified. Purins' belated attempt to render that complaint verified by furnishing a "verification" to the court, after the motion for leave to enter a default judgment had been submitted, does not satisfy the criteria of CPLR 3215(f), especially since there is no proof that this verification was ever served upon the third-party defendants. In any event, since Purins' verification was premised solely upon "information and belief", the complaint remained unverified and as such it was insufficient to support the entry of a default judgment (see, Zelnik v. Bidermann, 242 A.D.2d 227, 662 N.Y.S.2d 19; CPLR 3215[f] )....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heidari v. First Advance Funding Corp., 2007 NY Slip Op 32895(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/21/2007), 0004878/2007
...defendants leave to interpose a late answer since they have not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default. Henriquez v. Purins, 245 A.D.2d 337 (2nd Dept.1997). In the absence of a cross motion, this Court does not consider plaintiff's request, made in his affidavit in opposition, f......
-
Beckford ex rel. McKenzie v. Morse-Spalding
...854 ). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion should have been denied, with leave to renew on proper papers (see Henriquez v. Purins, 245 AD2d 337, 338, 666 N.Y.S.2d 190 ).However, there is significant appellate authority that even when plaintiff fails to comply with the statute requiring part......
-
Currie v. Wilhouski
...368, 368–69, 725 N.Y.S.2d 892 [2d Dept.2001].) The “information and belief” of the attorney adds nothing ( see Henriquez v. Purins, 245 A.D.2d 337, 338, 666 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2d Dept.1997]; Wood v. Nourse, 124 A.D.2d 1020, 1021, 509 N.Y.S.2d 223 [4th Dept.1986] ), even when based upon the attor......
-
Hobbins v. N. Star Orthopedics, P. L.L.C., Index No.:2934/11
...alleged solely upon "information and belief" is insufficient to support the entry of a default judgment (see, Henriquez v. Purins, 245 A.D.2d 337, 338, 666 N.Y.S.2d 190, 191; Zelnik v. Bidermann, 242 A.D.2d 227, 662 N.Y.S.2d 19). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to reargue is DENIED in its e......