Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 A.D.3d 450

Peniston v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 2004-08-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2010

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-08-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J), dated July 18, 2003, as denied their motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant- upon his failure to appear and answer, and compelled them to accept service of the defendant’s answer.

¶2Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

¶3In support of their motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant upon his failure to appear and answer, the plaintiffs failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts as required by CFLR 3215 (f) (see DeVivo v Sparago, 287 AD2d 535, 536 [2001]; Fiorino v Yung Poon Yung, 281 AD2d 513 [2001]; Grainger v Wright, 274 AD2d 549, 550 [2000]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion and compelled the plaintiff to accept service of the defendant’s answer. Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Luciano, Crane and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

/10/ad3d/450 · .json · Public domain