| Youngstown Tube Co. v Russo |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06308 [120 AD3d 1409] |
| September 24, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Youngstown Tube Co., Respondent, v AnthonyJ. Russo, Individually and Doing Business as Universal Fire Fabricating & Supply,Appellant. |
David O. Wright, Peekskill, N.Y., for appellant.
Rametta & Rametta, LLC, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert M. Rametta of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, the defendant appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated February 19, 2014, whichdenied 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, todismiss 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 ajurisdictional objection pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and, alternatively, seeksdiscretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), the court is required to resolve thejurisdictional question before determining whether it is appropriate to grant adiscretionary vacatur of the default under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (see Canelas v Flores, 112AD3d 871, 871 [2013];Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Westervelt, 105 AD3d 896, 897 [2013]; Roberts v Anka, 45 AD3d752, 753 [2007]). Here, the affidavit of the plaintiff's process server constitutedprima facie evidence that the defendant was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2)(see Matter of Perskin vBassaragh, 73 AD3d 1073, 1073 [2010]; Prospect Park Mgt., LLC v Beatty, 73 AD3d 885, 886[2010]; Pezolano v IncorporatedCity of Glen Cove, 71 AD3d 970, 971 [2010]). In the absence of detailed factssufficient to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavit of service, thedefendant's affidavit denying receipt of process was insufficient to warrant an evidentiaryhearing (see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Westervelt, 105 AD3d at 897; US Natl. Bank Assn. v Melton,90 AD3d 742, 743 [2011]; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716 [2009]). Thedefendant's other contention regarding the propriety of service also is without merit (see Ludmer v Hasan, 33 AD3d594, 594 [2006]; Donohue v La Pierre, 99 AD2d 570, 570 [1984];Brownell v Feingold, 82 AD2d 844, 844 [1981]). Accordingly, the defendantfailed to establish his entitlement to vacatur based upon lack of jurisdiction pursuant toCPLR 5015 (a) (4).
Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to discretionary vacatur pursuant toCPLR 5015 (a) (1), as he failed to set forth any reasonable excuse for his default (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.v White, 110 AD3d 759, 759 [2013]; Wells Fargo Bank v Malave, 107 AD3d 880, 880 [2013];Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vCervini, 84 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]).
[*2] Finally, the defendant was not entitled to reliefpursuant to CPLR 317 (seeWassertheil v Elburg, LLC, 94 AD3d 753, 754 [2012]; Fleisher v Kaba, 78 AD3d1118, 1119 [2010]; Levinev Forgotson's Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 AD3d 552, 553 [2007]). Thedefendant did not adequately rebut the presumption that he received notice of thesummons in the regular course of the mail (see Levine v Forgotson's Cent. Auto& Elec., Inc., 41 AD3d at 553; Town House St., LLC v New Fellowship Full Gospel BaptistChurch, Inc., 29 AD3d 893, 894 [2006]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remainingcontentions. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.