Youngstown Tube Co. v. Russo

• Decision Date: 24 September 2014
• Docket Number: 2014-03259
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06308,993 N.Y.S.2d 146,120 A.D.3d 1409
• Parties: YOUNGSTOWN TUBE CO., respondent, v. Anthony J. RUSSO, etc., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

120 A.D.3d 1409

993 N.Y.S.2d 146

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06308

YOUNGSTOWN TUBE CO., respondent

v.Anthony J. RUSSO, etc., appellant.

2014-03259

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

Sept. 24, 2014.

David O. Wright, Peekskill, N.Y., for appellant.

Rametta & Rametta, LLC, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert M. Rametta of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated February 19, 2014, which denied his motion to vacate an amended judgment of the same court dated August 12, 2013, entered upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint, and, thereupon, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises a jurisdictional objection pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) and, alternatively, seeks discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the court is required to resolve the jurisdictional question before determining whether it is appropriate to grant a discretionary vacatur of the default under CPLR 5015(a)(1) (see Canelas v. Flores, 112 A.D.3d 871, 871, 977 N.Y.S.2d 362 ; Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Westervelt, 105 A.D.3d 896, 897, 964 N.Y.S.2d 543 ; Roberts v. Anka, 45 A.D.3d 752, 753, 846 N.Y.S.2d 280 ). Here, the affidavit of the plaintiff's process server constituted prima facie evidence that the defendant was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) (see Matter of Perskin v. Bassaragh, 73 A.D.3d 1073, 1073, 899 N.Y.S.2d 901 ; Prospect Park Mgt., LLC v. Beatty, 73 A.D.3d 885, 886, 900 N.Y.S.2d 433 ; Pezolano v. Incorporated City of Glen Cove, 71 A.D.3d 970, 971, 896 N.Y.S.2d 685 ). In the absence of detailed facts sufficient to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavit of service, the defendant's affidavit denying receipt of process was insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing (see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Westervelt, 105 A.D.3d at 897, 964 N.Y.S.2d 543 ; US Natl. Bank Assn. v. Melton, 90 A.D.3d 742, 743, 934 N.Y.S.2d 352 ; Scarano v. Scarano, 63 A.D.3d 716, 716, 880 N.Y.S.2d 682 ). The defendant's other contention regarding the propriety of service also is without merit (see Ludmer v. Hasan, 33 A.D.3d 594, 594, 821 N.Y.S.2d 661 ; Donohue v. La Pierre, 99 A.D.2d 570, 570, 471 N.Y.S.2d 396 ; Brownell v. Feingold, 82 A.D.2d 844, 844, 440 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). Accordingly, the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to vacatur based upon lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4).

Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), as he failed to set forth any reasonable excuse for his default (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. White, 110 A.D.3d 759, 759, 972 N.Y.S.2d 664 ; Wells Fargo Bank v. Malave, 107 A.D.3d 880, 880, 968 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini, 84 A.D.3d 789, 790, 921 N.Y.S.2d 643 ).

Finally, the defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 317 (see Wassertheil v. Elburg, LLC, 94 A.D.3d 753, 754, 941 N.Y.S.2d 679 ; Fleisher v. Kaba, 78 A.D.3d 1118, 1119, 912 N.Y.S.2d 604 ; Levine v. Forgotson's Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 552, 553, 840 N.Y.S.2d 598 ). The defendant did not adequately rebut the presumption that he received notice of the summons in the regular course of the mail (see Levine v. Forgotson's Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 A.D.3d at 553, 840...