PATRICIA CURTO PLAINTIFF APPELLANT v. PATRICIA CURTO PLAINTIFF APPELLANT PRO SE

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

PATRICIA J. CURTO, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. MARK DIEHL AND MELISSA SCHMIGEL, DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.) PATRICIA J. CURTO, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT PRO SE.

CA 10–02024

Decided: September 30, 2011

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. HAGELIN KENT LLC, BUFFALO (VICTOR M. WRIGHT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  We reject the contention of plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment.   Inasmuch as defendants had previously appeared in this action, they were entitled to receive notice of plaintiff's motion for a default judgment (see CPLR 3215[g][1];  Nowak v Oklahoma League for the Blind, 289 A.D.2d 995).   Plaintiff failed to provide defendants with such notice, and thus her motion for a default judgment was defective.   We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court