Citimortgage, Inc. v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 22 March 2011
• Citation: 82 A.D.3d 1032,918 N.Y.S.2d 893
• Parties: CITIMORTGAGE, INC., etc., plaintiff-respondent, v. Seibert R. PHILLIPS, appellant, et al., defendants; Snowflake, L.P., nonparty-respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

918 N.Y.S.2d 893

82 A.D.3d 1032

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., etc., plaintiff-respondent,

v.Seibert R. PHILLIPS, appellant, et al., defendants; Snowflake, L.P., nonparty-respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 22, 2011.

Clair & Gjertsen, Scarsdale, N.Y. (Ira S. Clair of counsel), for appellant.

Katz & Rychik, New York, N.Y. (Bennett R. Katz of counsel), for plaintiff—respondent.

Schulman, Kissel & Keene, P.C., Suffern, N.Y. (Julian Alan Schulman of counsel), for nonparty-respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Seibert R. Phillips appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Jamieson, J.), entered April 2, 2010, which denied, without a hearing, his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (Nelson, J.) entered September 9, 2009, upon his default in appearing or answering.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, the motion of the defendant Seibert R. Phillips (hereinafter the defendant), in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The affidavit of the plaintiff's process server constituted prima facie evidence of valid service upon the defendant of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(1) ( see Prospect Park Mgt., LLC v. Beatty, 73 A.D.3d 885, 886, 900 N.Y.S.2d 433). In response, the defendant offered only a bare and unsubstantiated denial of service, which was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service ( see Sturino v. Nino Tripicchio & Son Landscaping, 65 A.D.3d 1327, 885 N.Y.S.2d 625; 96 Pierrepont v. Mauro, 304 A.D.2d 631, 757 N.Y.S.2d 468).

Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with CPLR 3215(f) did not render the judgment a nullity, or warrant excusing his default ( see Araujo v. Aviles, 33 A.D.3d 830, 824 N.Y.S.2d 317).

RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.