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.
Mark Anthony HAUGHTON, Appellant, v. Clayton HILLS, Also Known as Clayton Hill, Respondent.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In 2018, plaintiff commenced this action to recover unpaid rent from defendant, who, plaintiff alleges, is his former tenant. Upon defendant's failure to appear or answer the complaint, plaintiff obtained a default judgment, entered January 14, 2019, awarding plaintiff the sum of $32,145. Defendant's wages were garnished by the marshal.
Thereafter, defendant moved to vacate the default judgment and restore the case to the calendar. In his affidavit in support of the motion, defendant alleged that he was never served with a summons and complaint in this action. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff did not attach to his motion papers the process server's affidavit of service or any other affidavit establishing service. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion, ordered the garnishment and restraining notices lifted, and directed the marshal to return funds in the amount of $8,637.07 to defendant.
Generally, a process server's affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service which, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quinones, 114 AD3d 719 [2014]; Parker v Top Homes, Inc., 58 AD3d 817, 818 [2009]; 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 50 AD3d 845, 846 [2008]; Sando Realty Corp. v Aris, 209 AD2d 682 [1994]). Here, there was no basis for the Civil Court to find that jurisdiction had been acquired over defendant, as no affidavit proving service was included in any of the papers before the court. Consequently, the court properly vacated the default judgment and granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking to restore the case to the calendar.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.
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: 2020-889 K C
Decided: February 04, 2022
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)