US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. Joanne Williams also known as Joan Williams, also known as Joane Williams, also known as Joanie Williams, also known as Joan A. Williams, also known as Joan F. Williams, also known as Joan J. Williams, also known as Joann Williams, also known as Joanne Parker–williams, also known as Joanie A. Williams, also known as Joann L. Williams, also known as Joann N. Williams, also known as Joanne T. Williams, et al., Defendant–Respondent. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2025, which denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and granted defendant Joanne Williams's cross-motion to dismiss, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for a traverse hearing to determine whether plaintiff effectuated proper service and, thereafter, for determination of the motion and cross-motion.

Where a defendant was properly served with process, they must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default in order to obtain either an extension of time to answer or vacatur of a default (see CPLR 3012(d);  CPLR 5015(a)(1);  US Bank N.A. Harding, 124 AD3d 766, 766 [2d Dept 2015];  Cervini v Cisco Gen. Constr., Inc., 123 AD3d 1077, 1077–1078 [2d Dept 2014], lv dismissed 25 NY3d 961 [2015] ).  In contrast, where jurisdiction was never obtained over the defendant, neither a reasonable excuse nor a meritorious defense need be demonstrated (see European Am. Bank v Legum, 248 AD2d 206, 208 [1st Dept 1998] ).

Here, a traverse hearing is necessary to determine whether defendant was properly served.  Defendant's affidavit was sufficient to rebut plaintiff's prima facie evidence of service.  While defendant did not dispute that the service address listed was her home address, she stated that she was not personally served, that she was not the woman described in the affidavit, and provided a detailed, nonconclusory account of how she was in a different state at the time of service, providing childcare to her granddaughter (see NYCTL 1998–1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz, 7 AD3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2004] ).  In addition, the discrepancies identified in the descriptions of the woman served, who was white and had brown and blonde hair, and defendant, who is African American, were not “minor” (cf.  PNC Bank, N.A. v Bannister, 161 AD3d 1114, 1115–1116 [2d Dept 2018] ).  Because the affidavit of service stated only that Williams was served by personal delivery pursuant to CPLR 308(1), it is immaterial whether another individual bearing the process server's description was at the home at the time, since the affidavit does not state that Williams was also served by mail so as to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 308(2).

Only after a hearing can plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and defendant's cross-motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) or, in the alternative, for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 3012(d), be properly resolved (see Partners for Payment Relief DE III, LLC v Crooks, 243 AD3d 418, 419 [1st Dept 2025];  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Jones, 139 AD3d 520, 522 [1st Dept 2016] ).