Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although all allegations contained in the complaint were admitted based upon the defendant's default ( see Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728; McClelland v Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 NY 347), the legal conclusions to be drawn from such proof are reserved for the Supreme Court's determination ( see CPLR 3215 [b], [e]; Matter of Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694, 698; Green v Dolphy Constr. Co., 187 AD2d 635; Silberstein v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 96 AD2d 1096; Wine Antiques v St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co., 40 AD2d 657, affd 34 NY2d 781). "A plaintiffs right to recover upon a defendant's default in answering is governed by CPLR 3215 . . . which requires that the plaintiff state a viable cause of action" ( Fappiano v City of New York, 5 AD3d 627, 628). "`Where a valid cause of action is not stated, the party moving for judgment is not entitled to the requested relief, even on default'" ( Cardo v Board of Mgrs., Jefferson Vil. Condo 3, 29 AD3d 930, 932, quoting Green v Dolphy Constr. Co., 187 AD2d at 636; see Cree v Cree, 124 AD2d 538, 541).
The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judgment, since the plaintiff failed to state valid causes of action warranting the vacatur of the parties' stipulation of settlement.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.