Moran v BAC Field Servs. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05586 [2d Dept 2018]
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, CPLR 2103(b)(2) does not apply to render BAC's motion timely since BAC did not attempt service of its motion by using "the post office or official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service within the state" (CPLR 2103[f]). Rather, BAC utilized Federal Express. CPLR 2103(b)(6) provides that "[s]ervice by overnight delivery service shall be complete upon deposit of the paper . . . into the custody of the overnight delivery service for overnight delivery" (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that BAC failed to use Federal Express's overnight delivery service, and instead deposited its papers with Federal Express on Friday for weekday delivery on Monday. Accordingly, the court should have denied BAC's motion as untimely.
We agree with the Supreme Court's denial, as untimely, of the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to enter a default judgment against BAC, since the plaintiff failed to serve his cross motion within the time period required by CPLR 2215(b).
However, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Omega, and should have granted the plaintiff's separate motion for leave to enter a default judgment against Omega. " 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 the claim, and proof of the defaulting party's default in answering or appearing'" (Dupps v Betancourt, 99 AD3d 855, quoting Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v RJNJ Servs., Inc., 89 AD3d 649, 651; see CPLR 3215[f]). Here, in support of his motion, the plaintiff met all of these requirements as to Omega. Further, Omega never appeared in the action and failed to move to vacate its default (see BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Reardon, 132 AD3d 790).
The Supreme Court also should not have, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Boehm. There was no motion before the court seeking such relief, and the plaintiff was not on notice that such relief could be granted by the court (see Abinanti v Pascale, 41 AD3d 395).
The bold is mine