Not only did the defendants obtain dismissal, but the non-answering defendant obtained dismissal too.  Unfortunately the 2d Department decision in Siwiec v Rawlins 2013 NY Slip Op 00903 Decided on February 13, 2013  Appellate Division, Second Department did not explain its reasoning. The most that can be gleaned from this slender record is "Here, the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish that the underlying action would have been successful or that the defendants proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain damages (see Hallman v Kantor, 72 AD3d 895, 897; Wald v Berwitz, 62 AD3d at 787; Simmons v Edelstein, 32 AD3d 464, 465-466). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants Gary N. Rawlins and The Rawlins Law Firm, PLLC, and the cross motion of the defendant Craig F. Wilson, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(a) for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Craig F. Wilson (see Feder v Eline Capital Corp., 80 AD3d 554; Giha v Giannos Enters., Inc., 69 AD3d 564, 565). "