CitiMortgage Inc. v. Scott

• Decision Date: 11 January 2018
• Docket Number: 5440,Index 106760/08
• Citation: 67 N.Y.S.3d 201,157 A.D.3d 507
• Parties: CITIMORTGAGE INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Nkenge SCOTT, Defendant–Appellant, John Does No. 1 through 10, etc., et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

157 A.D.3d 507

67 N.Y.S.3d 201

CITIMORTGAGE INC., Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Nkenge SCOTT, Defendant–Appellant,John Does No. 1 through 10, etc., et al., Defendants.

5440

Index 106760/08

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

ENTERED: JANUARY 11, 2018

LaRocca Hornik Rosen Greenberg & Blaha LLP, New York (Eric P. Blaha of counsel), for appellant.

Akerman LLP, New York (Jordan M. Smith of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet–Daniels, Kahn, Kern, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 15, 2016, which, following a traverse hearing, denied defendant Nkenge Scott's motion to, among other things, vacate the default judgment entered against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There exists no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination, which turned largely on the credibility of the witnesses and was substantiated by the record, including affidavits of service (see Arrufat v. Bhikhi , 101 A.D.3d 441, 442, 954 N.Y.S.2d 538 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Plaintiff satisfied its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service of process was effectuated on defendant and personal jurisdiction was thereby obtained (see CPLR 308[2] ; Gass v. Gass , 42 A.D.3d 393, 393, 840 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1st Dept. 2007] ). While defendant submitted evidence of her residence at another location, she did not conclusively establish that she did not reside at the subject property, which she had identified in the loan application as her primary address (see Arrufat , 101 A.D.3d at 442, 954 N.Y.S.2d 538 ; Cadle...