JOHNSON v. 917 MANAGEMENT CORP (2025)

Order (Andrea R. Krugman, J.), entered July 11, 2024, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs.

We sustain the denial of plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, albeit for reasons different than those stated by the Civil Court. A party seeking a default judgment must submit “proof of service of the summons and complaint and proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due” (CPLR 3215 [f]; see Gantt v North Shore-LIJ Health Sys., 140 AD3d 418, 418 [2016]). To demonstrate “facts constituting the claim,” the movant must proffer proof sufficient “to enable a court to determine that a viable cause of action exists” (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]), which may be accomplished “either by submission of an affidavit of merit or by verified complaint” (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Bigio v Gooding, 213 AD3d 480, 481 [2023]).

Here, plaintiff's unverified complaint and initial affidavit of merit, merely incorporated vague and conclusory statements and failed to set forth any facts constituting any of his claims for “failure to provide proper services, loss of personal property, loss of time for work, pain and suffering and theft” (see Giordano v Berisha, 45 AD3d 416 [2007]; Beaton v Transit Facility Corp., 14 AD3d 637 [2005]; Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60 [1994]). Plaintiff's supplemental affidavit submitted in support of the motion was improperly submitted the first time in reply (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Horsfield, 227 AD3d 790, 793-794 [2024]; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Losco, 125 AD3d 733, 733-734 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur