Summary
In Rochdale Holding Corp. v. Neuendorf, 784 N.Y.S. 2d 924 (2004), the court held "the fact that the mail was addressed to zip code 10022, rather than zip code 10021, did not render service defective" where the correct street address and county were set forth.
Summary of this case from Latchman v. HardnettOpinion
03-119, 570695-02.
Decided March 19, 2004.
Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated May 3, 2002 (Paul L. Alpert, J.) which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment in a nonpayment summary proceeding.
Order dated May 3, 2002 (Paul L. Alpert, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J. HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
The judgment below was not voidable for lack of personal jurisdiction. The traverse court (Shlomo Hagler, J.) could reasonably find that tenant's housekeeper was served at the subject premises. The minor misdescription of the person to whom the process was delivered did not mandate a finding that good service was not effected. Although the traverse court incorrectly stated that there is no mailing requirement where "substituted service" is employed (see, RPAPL § 735), landlord made a sufficient showing that a mailing in compliance with the statute had been made based upon the process server's testimony and tenant's failure to introduce into evidence the process he received, which he had brought to court. The fact that the mail was addressed to zip code 10022, rather than zip code 10021, did not render service defective where the correct street address and county were set forth (see, Donohue v. LaPierre, 99 AD2d 570; cf., Avakian v. De Los Santos, 183 AD2d 687). Finally, since tenant has abandoned possession and the service was at least sufficient to support a money judgment (see, CPLR 308, no jurisdictional infirmity is presented.
Tenant also failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the nonpayment petition, requiring the denial of his motion to vacate the default (see, Boorman v. Deutsch, 152 AD2d 48, 51). There was no showing that tenant could satisfy the substantial arrears which had accrued. Landlord's forbearance in the past did not excuse tenant's failure to meet his current rental obligations.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.