Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v H & A Locksmith, Inc. |
2011 NY Slip Op 02539 [82 AD3d 674] |
March 31, 2011 |
Appellate Division, First Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation,
Respondent, v H & A Locksmith, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Ariq Vanunu, Appellant. |
—[*1]
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 to its terms. "Some proof of liability is . . . required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of . . . uncontested cause of action" (Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 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]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and RomÁn, JJ.