DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
CPLR 3215(a) requires that when a default judgment is taken against fewer than all of the defendants, the action is severed as against the remaining defendants ( see, Frolish v. Ryder Truck Rental, 63 A.D.2d 799). The judgment obtained by the plaintiff as against the defaulting defendant is not entitled to collateral estoppel effect against the nondefaulting defendants who would otherwise be denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate issues of liability ( see, Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 259 A.D.2d 304 [1st Dept., Mar. 9, 1999]; Frolish v. Ryder Truck Rental, supra). Thus, in the instant case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion which sought, in effect, to preclude the plaintiff from obtaining a default judgment against the nonappearing defendant. Notwithstanding the default judgment obtained by the plaintiff against one of the parties who allegedly perpetrated the fraud that induced the plaintiff to convey the subject property, the plaintiff must still meet his burden of proving, over the appellants' defense, that their mortgage should be set aside as a consequence of the alleged fraud ( see, S.D.I. Corp., v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 208 A.D.2d 706; Firedoor Corp. of Am. v. Merlin Indus., 86 A.D.2d 577).