Opinion
2013-01877, Index No. 33187/09.
2015-04-08
ONE WEST BANK, respondent, v. Cleveland JOHNSON, appellant.
Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cleveland Johnson, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se. Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Theresa L. Concepcion and Schuyler B. Kraus), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated December 18, 2012, which denied his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate an order of reference entered upon his default in appearing or answering the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate an order of reference entered upon his default. The affidavit of the plaintiff's process server constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) ( see Bank of N.Y. v. Samuels, 107 A.D.3d 653, 653, 968 N.Y.S.2d 93; Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Westervelt, 105 A.D.3d 896, 897, 964 N.Y.S.2d 543; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Chaplin, 65 A.D.3d 588, 589, 884 N.Y.S.2d 254). The defendant's 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 ( see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Persad, 117 A.D.3d 676, 677, 985 N.Y.S.2d 608; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. White, 110 A.D.3d 759, 760, 972 N.Y.S.2d 664; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Bustamante, 107 A.D.3d 752, 753, 968 N.Y.S.2d 513; Bank of N.Y. v. Samuels, 107 A.D.3d at 654, 968 N.Y.S.2d 93; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Tate, 102 A.D.3d 859, 859, 958 N.Y.S.2d 722).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.