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.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011


Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation, Respondent,
v
H & A Locksmith, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Ariq Vanunu, Appellant.

[*1] 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 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.