Wolf v. 3540 Rochambeau Associates
| Decision Date | 03 December 1996 |
| Citation | 650 N.Y.S.2d 161,234 A.D.2d 6 |
| Parties | Jennifer WOLF, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. 3540 ROCHAMBEAU ASSOCIATES, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Brian J. Shoot, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Glenn S. Kerner, for defendants-appellants.
Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and ELLERIN, WALLACH, TOM and ANDRIAS, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered June 5, 1995, which denied the defendants' amended motion to vacate a default judgment entered January 14, 1993, and directed the matter be set down for an inquest, is unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted and the default is vacated upon the condition that defendants, within 30 days of the service of a copy of this order, pay plaintiffs $500 in sanctions.
The IAS Court erred when it entered judgment by default against defendants as plaintiffs, in support of their motion, failed to provide a complaint verified by the party plaintiffs, rather than plaintiffs' attorney, or an affidavit in support of the motion executed by a party with personal knowledge of the merits of plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the judgment is a nullity (CPLR 3215[f]; Feffer v. Malpeso, 210 A.D.2d 60, 61, 619 N.Y.S.2d 46; Mullins v. DiLorenzo, 199 A.D.2d 218, 219, 606 N.Y.S.2d 161). Further, we also find that plaintiffs' failure to provide the foregoing could not be cured by testimony at the inquest on the issue of damages ( gerharDt v. j & r SALACQUa contr. co., iNc., 181 a.d.2D 719, 720, 581 N.Y.S.2d 227). Since the judgment is a nullity, we need not consider the issues of excusable default and the presence or absence of meritorious defenses.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we impose sanctions upon defendants as the result of their blatant disregard for court procedures with regard to their delay in answering the motion for a default judgment and their dilatory tactics in appearing at a traverse hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intervale Ave Assoc v. Donlad
...petition or an affidavit sworn to on personal knowledge. 8.Hazim v. Winter, 234 A.D.2d 422 (2d Dept, [1996] ); Wolf v. 3540 Rochambeau Associates, 234 A.D.2d 6 (1st Dept, [1996] ); Bldg Management Co., Inc. v. Vision Quest of Flatbush, 1 Misc.3d 681 (Civ Ct Kings County, [2003] ); Triangle ......
-
Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp.
...Accordingly, non-party movant insurer was entitled to vacatur without reference to excuse or a showing of merit (see, Wolf v 3540 Rochambeau Assocs., 234 A.D.2d 6, 7). In the long-form order on appeal, all of the directives by the motion court are consistent with the prior decision and orde......
-
Francisco v. Soto
...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 th......
-
Ostroy v. Six Square LLC
...for default must be supported by either an affidavit of a person with knowledge, or a verified complaint ( see Wolf v. 3540 Rochambeau Assoc., 234 A.D.2d 6, 650 N.Y.S.2d 161 [1996] ). Here, the record shows that third-party defendant was personally served with a verified copy of the summons......
-
A nullity or not? The status of a default judgment entered absent compliance with CPLR 3215(f).
...2001); Zelnik v. Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., 242 A.D.2d 227, 662 N.Y.S.2d 19 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1997); Wolf v. 3540 Rochambeau Assoc., 234 A.D.2d 6, 650 N.Y.S.2d 161 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996); Feffer v. Malpeso, 210 A.D.2d 60, 619 N.Y.S.2d 46 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1994); Mullins v. DiLorenzo......