By notice of motion filed on November 15, 2012 under motion sequence number two, plaintiff Simon L. Handler (hereinafter "Handler" or "plaintiff") has moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 for an order granting a default judgment in his favor against defendant HSBC Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter "HSBC" or "defendant").

BACKGROUND

On May 31, 2012, Handler commenced the instant action, pro se, by filing a summons and complaint with the Kings County Clerk's office. Handler's complaint contains fifteen allegations of fact in support of one cause of action which he has denominated as "predatory loan-duress." HSBC has not appeared or answered the complaint.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PAPERS

Plaintiff's motion papers consist of a notice of motion, a document signed by Handler, two affidavits of service of the summons and complaint, and two annexed exhibits. The first annexed exhibit is labeled A and contains a copy of the instant summons and complaint. The second exhibit is also labeled A and contains a copy of a home equity mortgage from HSBC to Handler recorded on July 12, 2004 with the New York City Department of Finance Office of the City Register.

LAW AND APPLICATION

In order to succeed on a motion for default judgment a plaintiff must comply with the procedural requirements set forth in CPLR 3215. First, the plaintiff must prove proper service of the summons and complaint on the defendant (Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v RJNJ Services, Inc., 89 [*2]AD3d 649, 651 [2nd Dept 2011]). Additionally the plaintiff must submit proof of the defendant's default in answering or appearing and must submit proof of facts sufficient to establish a viable claim (id.; also see CPLR 3215 (f)). CPLR 3215(f) states, among other things, that upon any application for a judgment by default, proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default, and the amount due are to be set forth in an affidavit "made by the party" (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Betts, 67 AD3d 735, 736 [2nd Dept 2009]).

A domestic or foreign corporation may be served by delivery of the summons to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or another agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service. A business corporation may also be served pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 and 307 (see CPLR 311(a)(1)). Business Corporation Law § 306(a) provides that service of process on a registered agent may be made in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons, as if the registered agent was a defendant. Business Corporation Law § 306(b) authorizes service on the Secretary of State as an agent of domestic or foreign corporation. Business Corporation Law § 307 sets forth the method of service of process on unauthorized foreign corporations.

Generally, proof of service shall specify the papers served, the person who was served and the date, time, address, or, in the event there is no address, place and manner of service, and set forth facts showing that the service was made by an authorized person and in an authorized manner (see CPLR 306). Mr. Arnold Klien, Handler's process server, averred in his affidavit of service that on October 12, 2012 he personally delivered the summons and complaint to Lawrence Thorpy, an individual authorized to accept service for HSBC. Mr. Jacob Werzberger, Handler's other process server, swore in his affidavit of service that on October 12, 2012, he mailed the summons and complaint to HSBC. Here, the affidavits of the process servers demonstrates proper and prima facie proof of service of the summons and complaint on the corporate defendant (see Indymac Federal Bank FSB v Quattrochi, 99 AD3d 763 [2nd Dept 2012]).

Plaintiff's next hurdle is a showing that the defendant failed to appear or answer the complaint (see CPLR 3215). Pursuant to CPLR 320, a defendant appears by serving an answer or notice of appearance, or by making a motion which has the effect of extending time to answer. An appearance shall be made within twenty days after service of the summons is complete (see CPLR 320 [a]). Handler has averred that HSBC has not appeared or answered the complaint.

Plaintiff's final hurdle is to submit his own affidavit setting forth proof of the facts constituting his claim (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Betts, 67 AD3d 735, 736 [2nd Dept 2009]). Plaintiff submitted a document containing eleven allegations of fact which he denominated as an affidavit in support of a default judgment. However, to the right of plaintiff's printed name on the last page of the document is the phrase "affirmed by me this 15th day of November 2012". Below the printed name is plaintiff's signature with no jurat below the signature. "Any person who, for religious or other reasons, wishes to use an affirmation as an alternative to an affidavit may do so. However, to be effective such an affirmation must be made before a notary public or other authorized official (CPLR 2309)" (Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799, 800 [1981]). The plaintiff has offered no explanation for attempting to use an affirmation instead of an affidavit. Furthermore, the affirmation is not made before a notary public or other authorized official. It is therefore an unsworn statement and has no probative value (see Amaker v Lee, 37 [*3]Misc 3d 1203(A) [Sup. Ct. Kings County 2012]). Furthermore, the instant complaint is signed by the plaintiff but is not verified and therefore may not be used as an affidavit pursuant to CPLR 105(u) (cf. Triangle Props. No. 2, LLC v Narang, 73 AD3d 1030 [2nd Dept 2010]). As a result plaintiff has not offered an affidavit or other admissible proof of the facts constituting his claim. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is denied without prejudice.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Enter________________________________x

J.S.C.

Enter forthwith________________________________x

J.S.C.