| Diederich v Wetzel |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08590 [112 AD3d 883] |
| December 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael Diederich, Jr., Appellant, v LorraineWetzel, Respondent. |
—[*1] Maureen McNamara, West Haverstraw, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover fees for legal services rendered, the plaintiff appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County(Walsh II, J.), dated December 9, 2011, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 forleave to enter judgment on the issue of liability, upon the defendant's failure to appear oranswer in the action.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs,the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue ofliability, upon the defendant's failure to appear or answer in the action, is granted, and thematter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for an inquest on the amountof attorney fees, if any, to which the plaintiff is entitled.
On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment under CPLR 3215, a plaintiff mustsubmit proof of service of the summons and the complaint, the facts constituting theclaim, and the defendant's default (see CPLR 3215 [f]; King v King, 99 AD3d672, 672 [2012]; C&HImport & Export, Inc. v MNA Global, Inc., 79 AD3d 784, 785 [2010]). Todefeat a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, the defendant must establish areasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Wassertheil v Elburg,LLC, 94 AD3d 753, 753 [2012]; New Seven Colors Corp. v White Bubble Laundromat, Inc., 89AD3d 701, 702 [2011]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789, 789[2011]; cf. CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Here, the defendant's excuse for her failure toappear or answer in the action was inadequate (see Arias v First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 100 AD3d940, 941 [2012]). In light of the defendant's failure to establish a reasonable excusefor her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she demonstrated the existence ofpotentially meritorious defenses to the complaint (see id. at 941; Midfirst Bank v Al-Rahman,81 AD3d 797, 797 [2011]). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter adefault judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted. Balkin, J.P.,Leventhal, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.