Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the notice of [*2]motion filed on June 30, 2025, under motion sequence number one, by Sabaj Law, P.C., (hereinafter the plaintiff) for an order pursuant to CPLR 3215, seeking leave to enter a default judgment against defendant Agnieszka Romotzki a/k/a Agnieszka Beata Nowak-Godzina A/K/A Agnieszka Beata Romotzki (hereinafter defendant or Romotzki) and setting this matter down for an inquest in favor of plaintiff. The motion is opposed.

Exhibit A

Exhibits 1-3

Exhibits A-B

Exhibits A-B

Affirmation of Steve Kemp, process server

On February 25, 2025, the plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a summons and verified complaint (hereinafter the commencement papers) with the Kings County Clerk's office (KCCO). On March 20, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended summons and verified complaint with the KCCO.

The amended verified complaint alleges one hundred and forty-five allegations of fact in support of tend denominated causes of action. The first cause of action is for an account stated. The second cause of action is for breach of an engagement agreement contract. The third cause of action is for breach of a settlement agreement contract. The fourth is for unjust enrichment. The fifth cause of action is for defamation. The sixth cause of action is for libel. The seventh cause of action is for slander. The eighth cause of action is denominated as a claim for injurious falsehood. The ninth cause of action is for tortious interference with business and contractual relationship. The tenth cause of action is for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

On June 25, 2025, the defendant filed a notice of appearance with the KCCO.

The defendant has not interposed an answer to the amended verified complaint or made a motion extending its time to answer.

CPLR 3215 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"(a) Default and entry. When a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial of an action reached and called for trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for any other neglect to proceed, the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against him."

"(f) Proof. On any application for judgment by default, the applicant shall file proof of service of the summons and the complaint . . . and proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due . . . by affidavit made by the party . . . Where a [*3]verified complaint has been served, it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim and the amount due; in such case, an affidavit as to the default shall be made by the party or the party's attorney."

"On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, the movant is required to submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting its claim, and proof of the defaulting party's default in answering or appearing" (Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v RJNJ Servs., Inc., 89 AD3d 649, 651 [2d Dept 2011], citing 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 [2d Dept 2009], citing CPLR 3215 [f]).

The defendant has opposed the motion contending that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely answer the complaint and a meritorious defense to the allegations within the complaint. The defendant has contended that the commencement papers were improperly served at an address at which the defendant no longer resided and at which the plaintiff knew that the defendant no longer resided. Defendant further alleged that the individual to whom the commencement papers were delivered was the defendant's adversary in the lawsuit in which the plaintiff was acting as defendant's lawyer. The defendant contends that this fact rendered the service of process defective because, contrary to the requirements of CPLR 308 (2), the papers were not served on an individual of suitable age and discretion. Defendant claims that, under these circumstances, the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

"A person would not be considered a person of suitable age and discretion where their interests in the proceeding were sufficiently adverse to the party for whom they were accepting service" (Home Props., L.P., Westwood Vil. Apts. v Kalter, 24 Misc 3d 391, 393 [Nassau Dist. Ct., 1st Dist. 2009]).

The defendant's claim, while troubling, is unavailing in light of the defendant's filing of a notice of appearance with the KCCO. "Generally, '[t]he filing of a notice of appearance in an action by a party's counsel serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction'" (Ming Xue Xir v 422 Sunshine Ct., LLC, 227 AD3d 980, 982 [2d Dept 2024], quoting U.S. Bank N.A. v Pepe, 161 AD3d 811, 812 [2d Dept 2018]).

Here, the defendant filed a notice of appearance on June 25, 2025. The defendant, however, neither interposed an answer to the complaint raising a jurisdictional objection nor made a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendant waived any claim to lack of personal jurisdiction and the plaintiff is not required to prove service of the commencement papers upon the defendant.

A default in answering the complaint is deemed to be an admission of all traversable factual allegations contained therein and all reasonable inferences that flow from them (Rosenzweig v Gubner, 194 AD3d 1086, 1088 [2d Dept 2021], citing Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp. 100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]). Here, the amended verified complaint was verified by plaintiff's counsel, and, as such, may not serve as an affidavit of the plaintiff's claim in accordance with CPLR 105 (u). On June 30, 2025, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of merit. The issue remaining is whether the affidavit of merit set forth a viable claim. The Court finds that [*4]the affidavit of merit did set forth a viable claim on at least one of the plaintiff's ten causes of action asserted in the amended verified complaint.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for an order granting leave to enter a default judgment is granted. The plaintiff is directed to file a note of issue on or before December 19, 2025. An inquest will be conducted on January 5, 2026, at 2:15 p.m. in Part 52, in-person.

The motion by plaintiff Sabaj Law, P.C. for an order pursuant to CPLR 3215 granting leave to enter a default judgment against defendant Agnieszka Romotzki A/K/A Agnieszka Beata Nowak-Godzina A/K/A Agnieszka Beata Romotzki (hereinafter defendant) and setting this matter down for an inquest in favor of plaintiff is granted.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.