Key Takeaway
Court conditionally grants default judgment despite plaintiff's failure to meet CPLR 3215(f) requirements for verified complaint and proper affidavit support.
When seeking a default judgment in New York courts, plaintiffs must satisfy strict procedural requirements under CPLR 3215(f). This includes submitting either a verified complaint or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge establishing the factual basis for the claim. The case of Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v QBE Ins. Co. demonstrates what happens when these requirements aren’t met, yet also reveals the courts’ willingness to provide opportunities for correction rather than outright denial.
The procedural missteps in this case are instructive for practitioners handling default judgment applications. Understanding these requirements becomes particularly important when considering the strict timelines involved, as failure to act promptly can lead to complications in the default judgment process.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v QBE Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51455(U)(App. Term 2d Dept., 2011)
“In support of its motion, plaintiff proffered neither a verified complaint nor an affidavit by a party with personal knowledge setting forth the factual basis for the claim, as is required by CPLR 3215 (f). Rather, plaintiff submitted an unverified complaint and an affidavit from an individual who did not establish that he was an employee of plaintiff, did not demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts, and did not establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Geico Indem. Co., 79 AD3d 864 ; Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 ; Balance Chiropractic, P.C. v Property & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 27 Misc 3d 138, 2010 NY Slip Op 50889 ; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 ).”
What I find interesting is that the court did not deny leave to enter a default outright.
Key Takeaway
Despite significant procedural deficiencies in meeting CPLR 3215(f) requirements, the court opted for conditional relief rather than outright denial. This approach suggests courts may provide opportunities to cure defects in default applications when the underlying claim appears meritorious, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and affidavit preparation in future submissions.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, CPLR 3215(f) default judgment requirements may have been subject to procedural amendments or clarifying court interpretations regarding verification standards and personal knowledge affidavits. Practitioners should verify current provisions of CPLR 3215(f) and review recent appellate decisions for any modifications to the strict procedural requirements for default judgment applications.
