BEY v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered June 18, 2024, which denied plaintiff's motions for default judgment against defendants and dismissed this hybrid proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Order, same court and Justice, entered July 22, 2024, which denied plaintiff's motions for default judgment and vacatur of the June 18, 2024 order as duplicative and frivolous, and enjoined plaintiff from filing any further motions without leave of court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court correctly denied plaintiff's motions for default judgment because she failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3215(f) (see Matter of Petre v. Lucia, 205 A.D.3d 438, 438, 168 N.Y.S.3d 42 [1st Dept. 2022]).  Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof of service under CPLR 306(a), as the affirmation of service submitted by plaintiff did not specify the papers served, the person who was served, and the date, time, and address.  Moreover, plaintiff's method of service, using priority mail, is insufficient to serve the City of New York (CPLR 311[a][2];  see Bik Ying Lau v. Yat Tang Ng, 303 A.D.2d 287, 287, 755 N.Y.S.2d 617 [1st Dept. 2003]).  Additionally, plaintiff failed to submit proof of facts constituting her claim, as her allegations of harassment, discrimination, and criminal conduct are conclusory (see Figueroa v. Relgold, LLC, 178 A.D.3d 425, 426, 111 N.Y.S.3d 173 [1st Dept. 2019]).

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's action for being duplicative of an action pending in Supreme Court, Kings County, in which plaintiff alleged substantially the same wrongdoing against the same defendants (see Simonetti v. Larson, 44 A.D.3d 1028, 1028–1029, 845 N.Y.S.2d 369 [2d Dept. 2007]).

The court also providently exercised its discretion in prohibiting further motion practice in this action without leave of court (see Lipin v. Danske Bank, 130 A.D.3d 470, 471, 13 N.Y.S.3d 389 [1st Dept. 2015], app dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 992, 19 N.Y.S.3d 213, 41 N.E.3d 70 [2015]).  Plaintiff's own brief on appeal details her history of filing repetitive, vexatious, and frivolous motions.

Motion for a default judgment and other relief, denied.