Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Citimortgage, Inc., etc., plaintiff-respondent, v. Seibert R. Phillips, appellant, et al., defendants; Snowflake, L.P., nonparty-respondent.
Submitted-March 9, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Seibert R. Phillips appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Jamieson, J.), entered April 2, 2010, which denied, without a hearing, his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (Nelson, J.) entered September 9, 2009, upon his default in appearing or answering.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, the motion of the defendant Seibert R. Phillips (hereinafter the defendant), in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The affidavit of the plaintiff's process server constituted prima facie evidence of valid service upon the defendant of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(1) (see Prospect Park Mgt., LLC v. Beatty, 73 AD3d 885, 886). In response, the defendant offered only a bare and unsubstantiated denial of service, which was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service (see Sturino v Nino Tripicchio & Son Landscaping, 65 AD3d 1327; 96 Pierrepont v. Mauro, 304 A.D.2d 631).
Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with CPLR 3215(f) did not render the judgment a nullity, or warrant excusing his default (see Araujo v. Aviles, 33 AD3d 830).
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010-04718 (Index No. 3904 /09)
Decided: March 22, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)