PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC v. Eddie Bueno et al., Defendants. (2026)

Judgment of foreclosure and sale, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered on or about July 23, 2025, unanimously affirmed.  Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 26, 2025, which denied defendant Carlos Valdez's motion to vacate the default judgment against him and dismiss the complaint or for leave to file a late answer, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The affidavits of service filed by plaintiff were prima facie evidence that defendant was properly served with the supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(2) (see Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Ali, 180 A.D.3d 591, 591, 119 N.Y.S.3d 474 [1st Dept. 2020], lv dismissed 36 N.Y.3d 1046, 140 N.Y.S.3d 477, 164 N.E.3d 283 [2021]).

Even if defendant sufficiently rebutted the process server's affidavit of service at the subject property by showing that it was an active construction site at the time, defendant failed to rebut the showing of proper service at his residence (see Johnson v. Deas, 32 A.D.3d 253, 254, 819 N.Y.S.2d 751 [1st Dept. 2006]).  Defendant asserts that the process server could not have served someone named “Andres Valdez,” the name of his deceased father, at his residence.  However, defendant did not dispute that process was served at his residence or assert that no one else matching the physical description contained in the affidavit of service lived at the residence (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Gifford, 224 A.D.3d 447, 450, 206 N.Y.S.3d 4 [1st Dept. 2024];  Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Kamil, 155 A.D.3d 966, 967, 64 N.Y.S.3d 116 [2d Dept. 2017]).  In addition, defendant's affidavit “failed to address, let alone dispute, that the pleadings had been mailed to [his] residence” (PEP LLC v. Channel Creations LLC, 217 A.D.3d 591, 592, 192 N.Y.S.3d 83 [1st Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Supreme Court correctly determined that defendant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default, as he did not rebut plaintiff's showing of proper service (see Citibank, N.A. v. K.L.P. Sportswear, Inc., 144 A.D.3d 475, 476, 41 N.Y.S.3d 29 [1st Dept. 2016]).  Because defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not address whether he demonstrated a meritorious defense (see Lopez v. Mama's Fried Chicken, Inc., 202 A.D.3d 597, 598, 159 N.Y.S.3d 834 [1st Dept. 2022]).