KING v. KING (2012)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated May 19, 2011, which denied her motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant upon the defendant's failure to appear or answer the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant upon the defendant's failure to appear or answer the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff demonstrated her entitlement to enter judgment against the defendant upon the defendant's failure to appear or answer the complaint by submitting proof of service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant, proof of a viable cause of action, and proof of the defendant's failure to appear or answer (see CPLR 105[u], 3215[f]; Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 70, 760 N.Y.S.2d 727, 790 N.E.2d 1156; A & J Concrete Corp. v. Arker, 54 N.Y.2d 870, 872, 444 N.Y.S.2d 905, 429 N.E.2d 412; Triangle Props. # 2, LLC v. Narang, 73 A.D.3d 1030, 1032, 903 N.Y.S.2d 424; Mercury Cas. Co. v. Surgical Ctr. at Milburn, LLC, 65 A.D.3d 1102, 885 N.Y.S.2d 218).

To avoid the entry of a default judgment, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Swedbank, AB, N.Y. Branch v. Hale Ave. Borrower, LLC, 89 A.D.3d 922, 932 N.Y.S.2d 540; Ogman v. Mastrantonio Catering, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 852, 853, 918 N.Y.S.2d 375; Mercury Cas. Co. v. Surgical Ctr. at Milburn, LLC, 65 A.D.3d at 1102, 885 N.Y.S.2d 218; Baldwin v. Mateogarcia, 57 A.D.3d 594, 869 N.Y.S.2d 217).

The defendant failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense based upon the plaintiff's alleged fault in causing the car accident at issue (see Thakurdyal v. 341 Scholes St., LLC, 50 A.D.3d 889, 890, 855 N.Y.S.2d 641; Figueroa v. Luna, 281 A.D.2d 204, 205, 721 N.Y.S.2d 635). While, in certain limited circumstances, a police report may be admissible into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see Bailey v. Reid, 82 A.D.3d 809, 810, 918 N.Y.S.2d 364; Noakes v. Rosa, 54 A.D.3d 317, 318, 862 N.Y.S.2d 573), the statements in the report attributed to the defendant and the plaintiff were not admissible under the business records hearsay exception because they were under no business duty to make such statements (see Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261, 274, 473 N.Y.S.2d 378, 461 N.E.2d 864; Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124, 128, 170 N.E. 517; Carr v. Burnwell Gas of Newark, Inc., 23 A.D.3d 998, 999, 803 N.Y.S.2d 834; Hatton v. Gassler, 219 A.D.2d 697, 631 N.Y.S.2d 757). Furthermore, the statements were inadmissible, self-serving declarations, and did not meet the standards for admissibility under any other exception to the hearsay rule (see Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d at 274, 473 N.Y.S.2d 378, 461 N.E.2d 864; Noakes v. Rosa, 54 A.D.3d at 318, 862 N.Y.S.2d 573; Hatton v. Gassler, 219 A.D.2d at 697, 631 N.Y.S.2d 757; Casey v. Tierno, 127 A.D.2d 727, 728, 512 N.Y.S.2d 123). Moreover, the defendant's proposed answer was not verified by a person with personal knowledge of the facts (see Ogman v. Mastrantonio Catering, Inc., 82 A.D.3d at 853, 918 N.Y.S.2d 375; Gross v. Kail, 70 A.D.3d 997, 998, 893 N.Y.S.2d 891; Pampalone v. Giant Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., 17 A.D.3d 556, 557, 793 N.Y.S.2d 462). Further, the defendant did not demonstrate that she had a potentially meritorious defense that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (cf. Papandrea v. Acevedo, 54 A.D.3d 915, 916, 864 N.Y.S.2d 138). Accordingly, in the absence of any admissible evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant should have been granted (see HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. Nuteh 72 Realty Corp., 70 A.D.3d 998, 999–1000, 895 N.Y.S.2d 497).