| Campoverde v Parejas |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04119 [95 AD3d 1251] |
| May 30, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jorge Campoverde, Respondent, v Alberto Parejas,Appellant. |
—[*1] James F. Woods & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered August26, 2011, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
At a hearing to determine the validity of service of process upon the defendant, the plaintiffestablished that the process server could not be compelled with due diligence to attend thehearing and, therefore, his affidavit constituted admissible prima facie evidence of servicepursuant to CPLR 308 (4) (see CPLR 4531; Koyenov v Twin-D Transp., Inc., 33 AD3d 967, 969 [2006];Deitsch v Fischer, 246 AD2d 623 [1998]). Furthermore, the plaintiff's proof disclosedthat the defendant was served at the residence address of the owner of the subject vehicle listedon the registration record maintained by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles.In rebuttal, the defendant testified that he no longer lived at the address listed on the registrationrecord and had moved from that address more than four years before service of the summons andcomplaint. As the registered owner of the subject vehicle, the defendant was required to notifythe Commissioner of any change of residence within 10 days of the change (see Vehicleand Traffic Law § 401 [3]). A party who fails to comply with this provision is estoppedfrom challenging the propriety of service made at the former address (see Kalamadeen v Singh, 63 AD3d1007 [2009]; Cruz v Narisi, 32AD3d 981 [2006]; Labozzetta vFabbro, 22 AD3d 644, 645 [2005]). The hearing record in this case supports theSupreme Court's determination that the defendant was properly served at the residence addressmaintained on the Commissioner's registration record for the owner of the subject vehicle, andwe discern no basis for disturbing that determination (see Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80AD3d 637 [2011]; Federal Fin. Co.v Public Adm'r, Kings County, 47 AD3d 881, 882 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson,Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.