Opinion
09-14-2016
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., respondent, v. Bernice WALTER, et al., defendants, Oscar Walter, et al., appellants.
Michael Kennedy Karlson, New York, NY, for appellants. Akerman, LLP, New York, NY (Jordan M. Smith of counsel), for respondent.
Michael Kennedy Karlson, New York, NY, for appellants. Akerman, LLP, New York, NY (Jordan M. Smith of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Oscar Walter and Michael Walter appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered April 9, 2015, which denied their motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered June 20, 2008, which had been entered upon their failure to answer the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage. The defendants Oscar Walter and Michael Walter (hereinafter together the defendants) failed to answer the complaint. A judgment of foreclosure and sale was subsequently entered upon their default. The defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendants appeal.
Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), a judgment entered upon a movant's default must be vacated once the movant demonstrates lack of jurisdiction (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Losner, 125 A.D.3d 640, 640–641, 999 N.Y.S.2d 749 ). “A process server's affidavit of service gives rise to a presumption of proper service” (Machovec v. Svoboda, 120 A.D.3d 772, 773, 992 N.Y.S.2d 279 ; see Matter of Romero v. Ramirez, 100 A.D.3d 909, 910, 955 N.Y.S.2d 353 ). “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. A sworn denial containing a detailed and specific contradiction of the allegations in the process server's affidavit will defeat the presumption of proper service” (Machovec v. Svoboda, 120 A.D.3d at 773, 992 N.Y.S.2d 279 ; see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Losner, 125 A.D.3d at 641, 999 N.Y.S.2d 749 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. DaCosta, 97 A.D.3d 630, 631, 949 N.Y.S.2d 393 ). “If the presumption is rebutted, a hearing to determine the propriety of service of process is necessary” (Machovec v. Svoboda, 120 A.D.3d at 773, 992 N.Y.S.2d 279 ). However, “no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to ‘specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits' ” (Scarano v. Scarano, 63 A.D.3d 716, 716, 880 N.Y.S.2d 682, quoting Simonds v. Grobman, 277 A.D.2d 369, 370, 716 N.Y.S.2d 692 ).
Here, the affidavits of the plaintiff's process server constituted prima facie evidence of proper service on the defendants pursuant to CPLR 308(2), and the affidavits submitted by the defendants failed to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tricarico, 139 A.D.3d 722, 32 N.Y.S.3d 213 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Losner, 125 A.D.3d at 641, 999 N.Y.S.2d 749 ; U.S. Natl. Bank Assn. v. Melton, 90 A.D.3d 742, 743, 934 N.Y.S.2d 352 ; Georges v. Dr. Claude Michel Mem. Med. Ctr., 76 A.D.3d 953, 953–954, 906 N.Y.S.2d 912 ).
The defendants' remaining contentions either are without merit or do not warrant reversal.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion.
MASTRO, J.P., HALL, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.