Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. H & A Locksmith, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants, Ariq Vanunu, Defendant–Appellant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. H & A Locksmith, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants, Ariq Vanunu, Defendant–Appellant.

4683

Decided: March 31, 2011

Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman, Román, JJ. Ofeck & Heinze, LLP, New York (Mark F. Heinze of counsel), for appellant. Jonathan David Bachrach, New York, for respondent.

_

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered December 28, 2009, which denied defendant-appellant's motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

The verified complaint alleged a contract to perform telephone services by plaintiff for defendants for a stated fee, and defendants' failure to pay.   However, the complaint does not allege that appellant was a party to the contract individually, so as to bind him its terms.  “Some proof of liability is ․ required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity

of ․ uncontested causes of action (Feffer v. Malpeso, 210 A.D.2d 60, 61 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted];  see Giordano v. Berisha, 45 AD3d 416 [2007];  CPLR 3215[f] ), and here plaintiff failed to provide the motion court with evidence that appellant was personally liable for the stated claims.   Accordingly, the default judgment was a nullity (see Natradeze v. Rubin, 33 AD3d 535 [2006] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

_

CLERK