Oteri v. Oteri-Harkins, 2017–00088
| Decision Date | 27 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2017–00088,Index No. 15146/15 |
| Citation | 122 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem),183 A.D.3d 902 |
| Parties | Steven OTERI, Respondent, v. Diane OTERI–HARKINS, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Diane T. Oteri–Harkins, Jamaica, NY, and Walter E. Harkins, Jr., Flushing, NY, appellants pro se (one brief filed).
Law Office of Wendy Tso, P.C., New York, NY, for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Frederick D.R. Sampson, J.), entered October 26, 2016. The order denied the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiff's motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation. After the defendants' time to appear in the action elapsed (see CPLR 320[a] ; 3211[e] ), the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff moved, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment. By order entered October 26, 2016, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's motion. The defendants appeal.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendants' motion. The motion was untimely made, and the defendants did not seek relief from their default or demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default (see Yi Zhao v. Liu, 136 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 25 N.Y.S.3d 606 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gonzalez, 99 A.D.3d 694, 694–695, 952 N.Y.S.2d 59 ; Holubar v. Holubar, 89 A.D.3d 802, 934 N.Y.S.2d 710 ).
Additionally, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the plaintiff's motion. On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, a plaintiff must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint or summons and notice, proof of the facts constituting the cause of action, and proof of the defendants' default (see CPLR 3215[f] ; Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 56, 59, 970 N.Y.S.2d 260 ). "To demonstrate the facts constituting the cause of action, the plaintiff need only submit sufficient proof to enable a court to determine if the cause of action is viable, since ‘defaulters are deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them’ " ( U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Green, 173 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 100 N.Y.S.3d 879, quoting Woodson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. Best Prof'l Home Care Agency, Inc.
... ... Van ... Zwienen, 212 A.D.3d 872, 875 [2d Dept 2023]; Oteri ... v. Oteri-Harkins, 183 A.D.3d 902, 903 [2d Dept 2020]; ... Holubar v. Holubar, 89 A.D.3d 802, ... ...
-
Xu v. Van Zwienen
...v. Holubar, 89 A.D.3d 802, 802, 934 N.Y.S.2d 710 ), and should not have been considered by the Supreme Court (see Oteri v. Oteri–Harkins, 183 A.D.3d 902, 903, 122 N.Y.S.3d 915 ; Holubar v. Holubar, 89 A.D.3d at 802, 934 N.Y.S.2d 710 ). BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, GENOVESI and TAYLOR, JJ.,...
-
Oparaji v. ABN Amro Mortg. Grp., Inc.
...N.Y.S.3d 879, quoting Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 71, 760 N.Y.S.2d 727, 790 N.E.2d 1156 ; see Oteri v. Oteri–Harkins, 183 A.D.3d 902, 903, 122 N.Y.S.3d 915 ). Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, ABN did not default since it appeared in the action when CitiMortg......
-
Banks v. 110-18 198th St. Corp.
...166 N.Y.S.3d 560 Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 71, 760 N.Y.S.2d 727, 790 N.E.2d 1156 ; see Oteri v. Oteri–Harkins, 183 A.D.3d 902, 903, 122 N.Y.S.3d 915 ). Here, Street Corp. failed to submit sufficient evidence of the facts constituting the third-party causes of action. A......