Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v. H & A Locksmith, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 200 (2013)
A failure to comply with CPLR 3215(f)’s requirement to submit proof of facts constituting the claim when seeking a default judgment is a procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect, and does not render the judgment a nullity.
Summary
Manhattan Telecom sued several corporations and Ariq Vanunu, alleging unpaid telephone services based on a written agreement. The complaint stated Vanunu was an officer in the corporations but did not allege he signed the agreement individually. All defendants defaulted, and a default judgment was entered. Vanunu moved to vacate, citing excusable default and meritorious defenses. The Supreme Court denied the motion based on inexcusable delay. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the default judgment a nullity because plaintiff failed to provide evidence of Vanunu’s personal liability. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that failure to comply with CPLR 3215(f) is a procedural defect, not a jurisdictional one, and therefore does not render the judgment a nullity.
Facts
Manhattan Telecom. Corp. (plaintiff) sued H & A Locksmith, Inc., other corporate entities, and Ariq Vanunu (defendant). The suit alleged that plaintiff provided telephone services to the defendants based on a written agreement, and the defendants failed to pay for those services. The complaint mentioned that Vanunu was a principal officer in all the corporate defendant entities. The written agreement was not attached to the complaint, and the complaint did not explicitly state that Vanunu signed the agreement in his individual capacity.
Procedural History
All defendants, including Vanunu, defaulted, and a default judgment was entered against them on November 28, 2008. Vanunu moved to vacate the judgment on November 5, 2009, claiming excusable default and meritorious defenses. The Supreme Court denied Vanunu’s motion, finding his delay in defending himself inexcusable. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, finding that the default judgment was a nullity because the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating Vanunu’s personal liability for the claims. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, certifying the question of whether its order was properly made.
Issue(s)
Whether a plaintiff’s failure to submit “proof of the facts constituting the claim” as required by CPLR 3215(f) when seeking a default judgment constitutes a jurisdictional defect that renders the default judgment a nullity.
Holding
No, because a failure to comply with CPLR 3215(f) is a procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of the power to enter judgment. The error can be corrected through means provided by law, such as an application for relief from the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals clarified the meaning of “jurisdiction,” explaining that it pertains to the fundamental power of a court to adjudicate a matter. A lack of jurisdiction means the court lacks the power to rule on the matter, not merely that elements of a cause of action are missing. The Court emphasized the distinction between a court committing an error by not complying with CPLR 3215(f) and a court usurping a power it does not have. The former is a procedural defect correctable under CPLR 5015, while the latter would render the judgment a nullity. The court cited Lacks v. Lacks, 41 N.Y.2d 71 (1976), explaining that “Lack of jurisdiction’ should not be used to mean merely ‘that elements of a cause of action are absent’ but that the matter before the court was not the kind of matter on which the court had power to rule.” The court further supported its holding by referencing Wilson v. Galicia Contr. & Restoration Corp., 10 N.Y.3d 827 (2008), where it refused to set aside a default judgment based on a CPLR 3215(f) argument because the party failed to preserve the argument. The Court reasoned that if the defect were truly jurisdictional, preservation would not matter.