Venturella-Ferretti v Ferretti
2010 NY Slip Op 04777 [74 AD3d 792]
June 1, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010


Jo-Ann Venturella-Ferretti, Appellant,
v
James Ferretti,Respondent.

[*1]Jo-Ann Venturella-Ferretti, Hicksville, N.Y., appellant pro se.

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but notmerged into the parties' judgment of divorce, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the SupremeCourt, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated January 21, 2009, which denied her motion for leaveto enter a default judgment upon the defendant's failure to appear at certain court conferences.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although all allegations contained in the complaint were admitted based upon thedefendant's default (see Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728 [1984];McClelland v Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 NY 347 [1930]), the legal conclusions to bedrawn from such proof are reserved for the Supreme Court's determination (see CPLR3215 [b], [e]; Matter of Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694, 698 [1999]; Green v DolphyConstr. Co., 187 AD2d 635 [1992]; Silberstein v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y.,96 AD2d 1096 [1983]; Wine Antiques v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 40 AD2d 657[1972], affd 34 NY2d 781 [1974]). "A plaintiff's right to recover upon a defendant'sdefault in answering is governed by CPLR 3215 . . . which requires that theplaintiff state a viable cause of action" (Fappiano v City of New York, 5 AD3d 627, 628 [2004]). " 'Wherea valid cause of action is not stated, the party moving for judgment is not entitled to therequested relief, even on default' " (Cardo v Board of Mgrs., Jefferson Vil. Condo 3, 29 AD3d 930,932 [2006], quoting Green v Dolphy Constr. Co., 187 AD2d at 636; see Cree vCree, 124 AD2d 538, 541 [1986]).

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a defaultjudgment, since the plaintiff failed to state valid causes of action warranting the vacatur of theparties' stipulation of settlement.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo andAustin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.