| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03286 [72 AD3d 902] |
| April 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Respondent, v ClaudeMichael Szajna, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cullen and Dykman LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Nathan G. Prystowky of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated March 31, 2009, which denied his motionpursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of the same court dated April 28, 2005,entered upon his default in appearing or answering, which was in favor of the plaintiff andagainst him in the principal sum of $21,448.44.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The process server retained by the plaintiff made three attempts to serve the defendant at hisdwelling. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the three attempts to serve him at his dwellingat different times and on different days, including an attempt on an early weekday morning andan attempt during midday Saturday, were sufficient to constitute "due diligence" within themeaning of CPLR 308 (4) (see Countyof Nassau v Gallagher, 43 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2007]; Johnson v Waters, 291AD2d 481 [2002]; Matos v Knibbs, 186 AD2d 725 [1992]; Mitchell v Mendez,107 AD2d 737, 738 [1985]). Since there was no indication that the defendant worked Saturdaysor that his workplace was readily ascertainable, the plaintiff was not required to attempt to servethe defendant at his workplace (see Johnson v Waters, 291 AD2d 481 [2002]; Matosv Knibbs, 186 AD2d 725 [1992]; Mitchell v Mendez, 107 AD2d at 738; cf.Pizzolo v Monaco, 186 AD2d 727 [1992]). Accordingly, the process server properlyresorted to service of process pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), and the defendant's motion to vacate thedefault judgment for lack of jurisdiction was properly denied. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller,Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.