Motion sequence numbers 003 and 004 are consolidated for disposition. In motion sequence number 003, plaintiffs Inessa Ganelina, as Personal Representative of and Administratrix of the Estate of Tatiana Light aka Tatiana Korkhova (the "deceased") and Valentina Minakova, sister of the deceased (collectively the "plaintiffs"), move to renew a prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (d) for a default judgment against defendant Eugene Perchikov aka Eyal Shahar (the "Perchikov Motion"). In motion sequence number 004 plaintiffs move to renew a prior motion seeking a default judgment against defendant Larisa Yurkov-Shkolnik or in the alternative, seek summary judgment against Shkolnik based on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (the "Shkolnik Motion"). None of the defendants have opposed the motions. For the reasons enumerated below, plaintiffs' motions for renewal are granted, and upon renewal, their motions for a default judgment against defendants Perchikov and Shkolnik are each respectively granted.

Plaintiffs' papers provide sufficient proof of the facts underlying the claim through their submission of an Affidavit of Inessa Ganelina, dated January 30, 2007, setting forth the allegations underlying the complaint and found as Exhibit 2 to the Shkolnik Motion. (See, CPLR [*4]3215 [f] [proof of facts may be shown by submission of "an affidavit made by the party."]).^[FN1] Plaintiffs' papers also provide adequate proof of defendant Perchikov's default for failing to appear or answer. Plaintiffs' original motion for a default judgment was brought on October 16, 2006, within one year of Perchikov's default as required by CPLR 3215 (d). Therefore, plaintiffs' papers in support of the Perchikov motion comply with the requirements of CPLR 3215 and, as such, the motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 (d) should be granted.

The issue of whether Shkolnik originally defaulted has been a matter of contention between the parties. According to Exhibit 3P of plaintiff's Shkolnik Motion, a letter from plaintiffs' counsel to Shkolnik's counsel, dated December 20, 2006, shows that the parties agreed that Shkolnik would have until December 27, 2006 to answer the complaint. According to an affirmation of plaintiffs' attorney submitted with the original January 30, 2007 default motion against Shkolnik, Shkolnik's counsel telephoned plaintiffs' attorney on January 4, 2007 seeking another extension (Shkolnik Motion, Ex. 3). Upon plaintiffs' attorney's refusal to further extend the time, Shkolnik served her answer later that day (Shkolnik Motion, Ex. 3Q). Thereafter, by letter dated January 5, 2007, plaintiff's counsel rejected and returned Shkolnik's papers on the ground that they were "not timely served" and Shkolnik "was in default at the time the enclosed papers were delivered ." On January 30, 2007, plaintiffs brought their original motion for a default judgment against Shkolnik (Shkolnik Motion, Ex. 1). While Shkolnik opposed the prior default motion (Shkolnik Motion, Ex. 5), she has not renewed her opposition here, although according to the November 20, 2008, affidavit of service attached to the moving papers, she appears to have been properly served with the motion.

As such, plaintiffs provide sufficient proof of default in their papers by showing that Shkolnik failed to timely answer or appear within the required time period and has failed to appear subsequently to oppose this motion. Therefore, plaintiffs' papers adequately fulfill the requirements of CPLR 3215 and a default judgment should be granted. As such, there is no need to address plaintiffs' alternative motion for a summary judgment against Shkolnik.

It is

ORDERED that in motion sequence number 003, the motion to renew is granted and upon renewal, the motion by plaintiffs for a judgment on default against Larisa Yurkov-Shkolnik is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that in motion sequence number 004, the motion to renew is granted and upon renewal, the motion by plaintiffs for a judgment on default against Eugene Perchikov aka Eyal Shahar, is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that an inquest at to damages as against Yurkov-Shkolnik and Perchikov shall be conducted upon the service and filing of a Note of Issue and a judgment shall be entered [*5]in plaintiffs' favor and against Yurkov-Shkolnik and Perchikov in the amount determined at the assessment of damages, together with costs and disbursements; and it is further

ORDERED that service of a copy of this decision and order together shall be served upon the defaulting defendants Larisa Yurkov-Shkolnik and Eugene Perchikov aka Eyal Shahar as follows:

(1) by mailing a copy to Larisa Yurkov-Shkolnik, by ordinary mail addressed to her attorneys, Moskowitz, Book & Walsh LLP, Attention: Chaim B. Book, Esq., 345 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10001 within fifteen days of entry of this order; and

(2) that the foregoing shall be deemed good and sufficient service; and

(3) by mailing of a copy to Eugene Perchikov aka Eyal Shahar, by overnight international mail or Federal Express addressed to him at 13G B'nei Benjamin Street, Herzliya, Israel within fifteen days of entry of this order; and

(4) that the foregoing shall be deemed good and sufficient service; and it is further

ORDERED that service of a copy of this order together with the papers upon which it was granted shall be made upon the defendants who have appeared and answered, by ordinary mail to their attorneys within fifteen days of entry of this order

ORDERED that if the parties believe that discovery is required between the plaintiffs and the answering insurance companies, any of the remaining parties may contact the Part 12 Clerk, Mr. Michael Kasper, at 646-386-3273 to schedule a compliance conference on or before March 30, 2009. Failure to contact the Part 12 Clerk will be deemed a stipulation that all discovery is complete.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

Dated: March 11, 2009____________________________________

New York, New YorkJ.S.C.

(2009 D & O_110968_2006_003_004_DAZ rev4)