Plaintiff is the Board of Managers of Two Columbus Avenue, a Manhattan condominium. Defendant Benjamin Leschins has for the past several years resided in a unit in the condominium that he does not own.1 The Board’s amended complaint in this action asserts claims against Leschins to recover unpaid common charges under unjust-enrichment and account-stated theories. Leschins did not respond to the amended complaint. The Board now moves for a default judgment under CPLR 3215 of $153,705.09, plus interest running from May 2016, plus attorney fees. The motion is denied. DISCUSSION The Board’s motion papers establish service of the amended complaint on Leschins and his default, as CPLR 3215 (f) requires. In addition, the Board must provide proof of the facts constituting its claim. To do so, the Board relies principally on its verified complaint (which qualifies as an affidavit for this purpose) and on a document that the Board’s attorney’s affirmation represents to be an account ledger recording the unit’s common-charge arrears. A defaulting defendant is deemed to have admitted all the allegations in the complaint. (See Rokina Optical Co. v. Camera King, Inc., 63 NY2d 728, 730 [1984].) The “legal conclusions to be drawn from such proof,” though — and whether the facts deemed established demonstrate that the plaintiff has a viable cause of action — “are reserved for the Supreme Court’s determination.” (McGee v. Dunn, 75 AD3d 624, 624 [2d Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted].) If the allegations of the complaint do not establish a cause of action, the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment must be denied. (See Matter of Dyno v. Rose, 260 AD2d 694, 698 [3d Dept 1999].) The Board’s submissions on this motion do not establish that it has a cause of action against Leschins. I. Defects in the Board’s Claims Against Benjamin Leschins as Pleaded The Board seeks a default judgment against Leschins on two theories articulated in the amended complaint: (i) Leschins has been unjustly enriched by residing in the condominium unit without paying common charges; and (ii) Leschins owes an obligation to pay common charges through an account stated. Neither the verified complaint nor the other materials submitted on this motion establish a cause of action against Leschins on either theory. A. The Board’s Unjust-Enrichment Claim The Board’s unjust-enrichment theory is that Leschins has enjoyed the benefits of residence in the condominium without paying the corollary common charges necessary to support the building’s maintenance and upkeep. But the Board has not alleged or otherwise provided facts demonstrating that Leschins had an obligation to pay those common charges in the first place. The Board relies on §1.2 of the condominium by-laws. Section 1.2 provides that the bylaws apply to occupants of units in the condominium, as well as to unit owners or lessees of owners; and that occupancy of a condominium unit constitutes an implied agreement to accept and comply with the by-laws and their implementing rules. (See NYSCEF No. 104 at
14-a, 30 [amended complaint]; NYSCEF No. 122 at
