Opinion
2017–11686 Index No. 1385/15
05-01-2019
WEST COAST SERVICING, INC., Respondent, v. Zarina YUSUPOVA, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Anderson, Bowman & Zalewski, PLLC, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Matthew J. Routh of counsel), for appellant.
Anderson, Bowman & Zalewski, PLLC, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Matthew J. Routh of counsel), for appellant.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage against, among others, the defendant Zarina Yusupova (hereinafter the defendant). According to the affidavit of service, the defendant was personally served with copies of the summons and complaint at her place of business on March 12, 2015. The defendant neither answered the complaint nor appeared in this action.
On November 29, 2016, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Thereafter, the defendant moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) and (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. In an order entered September 5, 2017, the court denied the defendant's motion. The defendant appeals.
"When a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises a jurisdictional objection pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) and also seeks a discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), a court is required to resolve the jurisdictional question before determining whether it is appropriate to grant a discretionary vacatur of the default under CPLR 5015(a)(1)" ( Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Besemer , 131 A.D.3d 1047, 1047, 16 N.Y.S.3d 819 ; see E*Trade Bank v. Vazquez , 126 A.D.3d 933, 933–934, 7 N.Y.S.3d 285 ; Emigrant Mtge. Co. v. Westervelt , 105 A.D.3d 896, 897, 964 N.Y.S.2d 543 ).
"To be entitled to vacatur of a default judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(4), a defendant must overcome the presumption raised by the process server's affidavit of service" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Whitter , 159 A.D.3d 942, 945, 74 N.Y.S.3d 285 ; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. O'King , 148 A.D.3d 776, 776, 51 N.Y.S.3d 523 ; Mahovec v. Svoboda , 120 A.D.3d 772, 773, 992 N.Y.S.2d 279 ). "While bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing" ( Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Greenberg , 138 A.D.3d 984, 985, 31 N.Y.S.3d 110 [citations omitted]; see Engel v. Boymelgreen , 80 A.D.3d 653, 654, 915 N.Y.S.2d 596 ; Associates First Capital Corp. v. Wiggins , 75 A.D.3d 614, 904 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; City of New York v. Miller , 72 A.D.3d 726, 727, 898 N.Y.S.2d 643 ).
Here, the affidavit of the plaintiff's process server constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) (see Community W. Bank, N.A. v. Stephen , 127 A.D.3d 1008, 9 N.Y.S.3d 275 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hasan , 126 A.D.3d 683, 684, 5 N.Y.S.3d 460 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Quinones, 114 A.D.3d 719, 981 N.Y.S.2d 107 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, her "bare and unsubstantiated denial of service lacked the factual specificity and detail required to rebut the prima facie proof of proper service set forth in [the] affidavit of service" ( Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Quinones , 114 A.D.3d at 719, 981 N.Y.S.2d 107 ; see Citimortgage, Inc. v. Bustamante , 107 A.D.3d 752, 753, 968 N.Y.S.2d 513 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Phillips , 82 A.D.3d 1032, 1033, 918 N.Y.S.2d 893 ).
To the extent that the defendant sought to vacate her default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), she failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default, since the only excuse proffered was that she was not served with process (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pietranico , 102 A.D.3d 724, 957 N.Y.S.2d 868 ). Since the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she sufficiently demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Daniels , 163 A.D.3d 639, 641, 81 N.Y.S.3d 584 ; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. McLean , 140 A.D.3d 1131, 1132, 35 N.Y.S.3d 188 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Dalessio , 137 A.D.3d 860, 863–864, 27 N.Y.S.3d 192 ).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) and (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale.
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.