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.
TECHNICAL CAREER INSTITUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey CLERVEAUX, Defendant-Respondent.
Order (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), entered October 12, 2018, reversed, without costs, motion denied and default judgment reinstated.
Defendant's affidavit submitted approximately 9 years after entry of the default judgment failed to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the affidavit of the process server (see Perilla v. Carchi, 100 AD3d 429, 430 [2012]). Defendant's conclusory assertions that he “was not served a summons and complaint” and “did not receive the court papers” were not sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service and to warrant a traverse hearing (see Grinshpun v. Borokhovich, 100 AD3d 551, 552 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]; Matter of de Sanchez, 57 AD3d 452, 454 [2008]).
Nor was defendant entitled to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1). Inasmuch as the only excuse offered is the meritless improper service argument, defendant has no excuse for the default and the motion to vacate should have been denied regardless of whether he has a meritorious defense (see Citibank, N.A. v. K.L.P. Sportwear, Inc., 144 AD3d 475, 476-477 [2016]; Time Warner City Cable v. Tri State Auto, 5 AD3d 153 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 656 [2004]). In any event, defendant's allegations that he fully satisfied a school loan to a third party were insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious defense to this action by the school to recover monies owed for tuition and/or school supplies.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Per Curiam.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 19-139
Decided: March 12, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, 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)