From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Natradeze v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 26, 2006
33 A.D.3d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 9079N.

October 26, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered January 11, 2005, which denied defendant Rubin's motion to vacate her default, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.


The default order entered was a nullity inasmuch as plaintiffs' default motion papers failed to include either a verified complaint or an affidavit prepared by one having personal knowledge of the facts at issue ( see DeLeon v Sonin Genis, 303 AD2d 291, 292). Although Rubin did not appear on plaintiff's motion seeking a default, and for the first time on appeal she challenges the adequacy of plaintiff's motion papers seeking a default, the issue can be reached as it is one that can be decided as a matter of law from the face of the record ( see Chateau D' If Corp. v City of New York, 219 AD2d 205, 209, lv denied 88 NY2d 811). Given our conclusion that the challenged order was a "nullity," Rubin's remaining arguments need not be reached.


Summaries of

Natradeze v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 26, 2006
33 A.D.3d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Natradeze v. Rubin

Case Details

Full title:INGA NATRADEZE et al., Respondents, v. ELENA RUBIN, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 26, 2006

Citations

33 A.D.3d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 7775
822 N.Y.S.2d 541

Citing Cases

Zaidman v. Zaidman

The Supreme Court also concluded that the defendant's own submissions in support of her motion to vacate her…

Tiburicio v. Brusco W. 78th St., LLC

The verified complaint, verified only by plaintiff's attorney, is insufficient to fulfill this requirement.…