From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodyear v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 5, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record indicates, and the plaintiff does not controvert, that the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment was not based on either a verified complaint or an affidavit by a party as required by CPLR 3215 (f). Under these circumstances, entry of a default judgment would be erroneous and the judgment would be a nullity (see, Gerhardt v. Salacqua Contr. Co., 181 A.D.2d 719; Joosten v. Gale, 129 A.D.2d 531, 535; Income Prop. Consultants v. Lumat Realty Corp., 88 A.D.2d 582). Accordingly, we need not consider whether the defendants established that they had a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defense (see, Income Prop. Consultants v. Lumat Realty Corp., supra). O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Goodyear v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Goodyear v. Weinstein

Case Details

Full title:LORENE GOODYEAR, Appellant, v. STEVEN WEINSTEIN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 108

Citing Cases

Zelnik v. Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc.

We have no argument with our colleagues who find proper service of the summons and complaint and no…

PRS Assets v. Rodriguez

However, this test has not been applied by appellate courts in the First and Third Departments in instances…