Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Dekom

• Decision Date: 16 May 2018
• Docket Number: 2015–02955,Index No. 8566/13,2015–09970,2015–09971
• Citation: 161 A.D.3d 995,78 N.Y.S.3d 148
• Parties: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, respondent, v. Martin DEKOM, appellant, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 995
78 N.Y.S.3d 148

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, respondent,
v.
Martin DEKOM, appellant, et al., defendants.

2015–02955
2015–09970
2015–09971
Index No. 8566/13

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

Argued—January 16, 2018
May 16, 2018

Martin Dekom, Manhasset, NY, appellant pro se.

Sandelands Eyet, LLP, New York, N.Y. (William C. Sandelands and Kieran M. Dowling of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Martin Dekom appeals from a

78 N.Y.S.3d 149

judgment of foreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), dated December 2, 2014, and two orders of the same court, entered April 16, 2015, and May 14, 2015, respectively. The judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon the default of the defendant Martin Dekom in answering the complaint, inter alia, directed the sale of the subject property. The order entered April 16, 2015, denied the motion of the defendant Martin Dekom, in effect, to vacate his default in answering. The order entered May 14, 2015, denied the motion of the defendant Martin Dekom to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure and sale and/or stay its enforcement.

ORDERED that the judgment and the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage after the defendant Martin Dekom (hereinafter the defendant) defaulted in making his payments on the underlying note. The defendant defaulted in answering the complaint. The action proceeded to an inquest, where the defendant appeared and sought dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him for, among other things, lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff established personal jurisdiction over the defendant, in that the defendant was properly served, and directed entry of judgment. A judgment of foreclosure and sale dated December 2, 2014, was then entered.

The defendant moved, in effect, to vacate his default in answering. In an order entered April 16, 2015, the Supreme Court denied that motion. The defendant then moved to vacate the default judgment and/or stay its enforcement. That motion was denied by order entered May 14, 2015. The defendant appeals from the judgment and the orders entered April 16, 2015, and May 14, 2015, respectively.

We agree with the Supreme Court's rejection of the defendant's claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. A process server's...