BLAM v. NETCHER

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]).