In support of her motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon her default in answering, the plaintiff failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts ( see CPLR 3215 [f]; Goodman v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 2 AD3d 581; Drake v. Drake, 296 AD2d 566; Parratta v. McAllister, 283 AD2d 625). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion should have been denied, with leave to renew on proper papers ( see Henriquez v. Purins, 245 AD2d 337, 338).
The appeal from so much of the order as denied the defendant's request for leave to serve a late answer is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order denying a motion not made on notice ( see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]), and we decline to grant leave. We note that in the absence of a cross motion the Supreme Court should not have considered the defendant's informal request for an extension of time to answer ( see CPLR 2215; Siegel, NY Prac § 249, at 403 [3d ed]).