Justice Francois Rivera
Joy Construction (JC) moved for a default judgment on its cross-complaint against JTP Waterworks. PVI Industries' complaint contained 27 allegations with three causes of action. JC sued JTP by cross-complaint demanding an answer and containing 16 allegations with two causes of action for monetary damages based on JTP's breach of a subcontract. JTP did not answer or appear on PVI's or JC's complaints. The court noted in order to find that a party defaulted, the movant must demonstrate the defaulting party had an obligation to respond to movant's pleading, yet failed to do so. The court stated JC did not include the cross-claims against JTP as part of its answer to PVI's complaint, but filed its cross-complaint as a separate pleading and served it on JTP by regular mail. JC was required to show it properly served the cross-complaint on JTP, triggering an obligation to respond. The court ruled as JC's affidavit of service by mail did not include the required statements of service by mail, and acknowledgments of receipt with the mailing, the attempt at service by mailing did not satisfy the alternative requirements of CPLR 312-a. Thus, it stated JTP had no obligation to respond, and its failure to do so could not serve as a basis for a default judgment against it.