By notice of motion filed on June 11, 2010, under motion sequence number three, plaintiff Dennis Seymour (hereinafter "Seymour") moves for an order seeking certain relief.

By notice of cross- motion filed on July 15, 2010, under motion sequence number four, defendants Adrian Welsh, William King, 1682-1700 Sterling Place H.D.F.C., Margaret Lopez, Beatrice Cuffey, Cecilia Stewart, and Desire Rose (hereinafter "defendants") oppose plaintiff's motion and jointly move pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (7) for an order dismissing Seymour's complaint.

On October 14, 2008, plaintiff Dennis Seymour commenced this action by filing a summons and verified complaint with the Kings County Clerk's office Defendants joined issue by their joint verified answer filed with the Kings County Clerk's office on June 26, 2009.

By order of the court per Justice Spodek, dated March 9, 2009, a motion by plaintiff for a default judgment against defendants was granted, a note of issue was scheduled to be filed by [*2]April 8, 2009, and an inquest was scheduled for April 22, 2009.

By order dated May 11, 2009, the court, per Justice Spodek, the default judgment awarded plaintiff on March 9, 2009 was vacated.

Defendant's cross-motion papers also serve as opposition to plaintiff's motion and contain an affirmation of their counsel and nine annexed exhibits labeled A through I. Exhibit A is a copy of the summons and complaint in the instant action. Exhibit B is a copy of the request for judicial intervention. Exhibit C is a copy of an order of this court per Justice Spodek, dated March 9, 2009, granting plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendants, among other things. Exhibit D is a copy of the note of issue filed with the Kings County Clerk on March 25, 2009. Exhibit E is a preliminary conference order. Exhibit F is a central compliance part order. Exhibit F is an affidavit of Carol Fraser, who identifies herself as "the acting secretary of the defendant Coop Board". Exhibit G is an affidavit of defendant Maritza Austin. Exhibit H is a copy of a stipulation of settlement in a Kings County Civil Court action filed under index number 108120/2008.

Plaintiff opposes defendants' cross motion with a document labeled "Notice of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Cross Motion to Dismiss".

CPLR § 2214[a] and [c] provides in pertinent part as follows: Motion papers; service; time.

(a) Notice of motion. A notice of motion shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting papers upon which the motion is based, the relief demanded and the grounds therefor. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

(c) Furnishing papers to the court. Each party shall furnish to the court all papers served by him. The moving party shall furnish at the hearing all other papers not already in the possession of the court necessary to the consideration of the questions involved.Part 202 of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts at §202.7 [a] and [c] provides in pertinent part as follows:

(a) There shall be compliance with the procedures prescribed in the CPLR for the bringing of motions. In addition, except as provided in subdivision (d) of this section, no motion shall be filed with the court unless they have been served and filed with the motion papers (1) a notice of motion and (2) with respect to a motion relating to disclosure or to a bill of particulars, an affirmation that counsel has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion. [*3]

(c) The affirmation of the good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion shall indicate the time, place, and nature of the consultation and the issues discussed.

The court has carefully reviewed plaintiff's motion papers and cannot determine the relief plaintiff seeks. The relief plaintiff seeks as stated in the notice of motion is set off below in quotations and states as follows:

"An order precluding the named defendants in this action from interposing or otherwise appearing to oppose plaintiff's underlying motion pursuant to CPLR §3215 directing the entry of judgment against defendants 1682-1700 Sterling Place H.D.F.C. and Maritza Austin, for the relief demanded in the verified complaint..."

The defendants presumed the motion to be a an application for sanctions based on a disclosure violation. The defendants also presented documentary evidence establishing that a default judgment entered against them had been vacated.

The motion is denied pursuant to CPLR § 2214 for not clearly setting forth the relief sought and the basis for same. Furthermore, assuming that the relief sought is a sanction based on a disclosure violation, it must be denied for failure to submit an affirmation or affidavit that plaintiff conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion as required by 202.7 [a] of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts. Assuming the relief sought is a default judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3215, it must be denied pursuant to CPLR § 2214[c] for failure to annex a copy of the complaint to the motion.

Defendant's seek dismissal of the complaint pre-answer pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7). The complaint contains twenty-nine allegations of fact in support of five named causes of action. The first cause of action is labeled arbitrary and capricious victimization. The second is labeled unlawful and malicious eviction based upon disability in violation of New York State Executive Law Article 15, Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The third is labeled Abuse of Office and Process. The fourth is labeled unconscionable deceptive practices. The fifth is labeled fraudulent misrepresentation with intent to obtain free and forced labor. Paragraph three, five, ten, twenty, and twenty-nine of the complaint reference six annexed exhibits labeled A through F. The defendants did not include the annexed exhibits of the complaint in their cross-motion papers. Since the defendants failed to provide the court with the complete and very pleading necessary to establish the validity of its claim, its motion to dismiss the original complaint must be denied pursuant to CPLR § 2214[c] (see generally, Alizio v. Perpignano, 225 AD2d 723 [2nd Dept., 1996]).

Plaintiff's motion and defendants' cross-motion are denied. Defendants have twenty days to answer the complaint.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court..motion and cross motion. [*4]

Enter:

J.S.C.

Enter Forthwith:

J.S.C.