Majority
In an action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated February 19, 2014, which denied his motion to vacate an amended judgment of the same court dated August 12, 2013, entered upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint, and, thereupon, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Where, as here, a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises a jurisdictional objection pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and, alternatively, seeks discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), the 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) (see Canelas v Flores, 112 AD3d 871 , 871 [2013]; Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Westervelt, 105 AD3d 896 , 897 [2013]; Roberts v Anka, 45 AD3d 752 , 753 [2007]). Here, the affidavit of the plaintiffs process server constituted prima facie evidence that the defendant was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (see Matter of Perskin v Bassaragh, 73 AD3d 1073 , 1073 [2010]; Prospect Park Mgt., LLC v Beatty, 73 AD3d 885 , 886 [2010]; Pezolano v Incorporated City of Glen Cove, 71 AD3d 970 , 971 [2010]). In the absence of detailed facts sufficient to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit of service, the defendant’s affidavit denying receipt of process was insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing (see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Westervelt, 105 AD3d at 897 ; US Natl. Bank Assn. v Melton, 90 AD3d 742 , 743 [2011]; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716 , 716 [2009]). The defendant’s other contention
Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), as he failed to set forth any reasonable excuse for his default (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v White, 110 AD3d 759 , 759 [2013]; Wells Fargo Bank v Malave, 107 AD3d 880 , 880 [2013]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789 , 790 [2011]).
Finally, the defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 317 (see Wassertheil v Elburg, LLC, 94 AD3d 753 , 754 [2012]; Fleisher v Kaba, 78 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2010]; Levine v Forgotson’s Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 AD3d 552 , 553 [2007]). The defendant did not adequately rebut the presumption that he received notice of the summons in the regular course of the mail (see Levine v Forgotson’s Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 AD3d at 553 ; Town House St., LLC v New Fellowship Full Gospel Baptist Church, Inc., 29 AD3d 893 , 894 [2006]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions.
Skelos, J.P, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Canelas v. Flores 112 AD3d 871 at 871 p. 1409
- Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. Westervelt 105 AD3d 896 at 897 p. 1409
- Roberts v. Anka 45 AD3d 752 at 753 p. 1409
- Perskin v. Bassaragh 73 AD3d 1073 at 1073 p. 1409
- Prospect Park Management, LLC v. Beatty 73 AD3d 885 at 886 p. 1409
- US National Bank Ass'n v. Melton 90 AD3d 742 at 743 p. 1409
- Scarano v. Scarano 63 AD3d 716 at 716 p. 1409
- Donohue v. La Pierre 99 AD2d 570 at 570 p. 1410
- Brownell v. Feingold 82 AD2d 844 at 844 p. 1410
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. White 110 AD3d 759 at 759 p. 1410
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Malave 107 AD3d 880 at 880 p. 1410
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Cervini 84 AD3d 789 at 790 p. 1410
- Wassertheil v. Elburg, LLC 94 AD3d 753 at 754 p. 1410
- Fleisher v. Kaba 78 AD3d 1118 at 1119 p. 1410
- Levine v. Forgotson's Central Auto & Electric, Inc. 41 AD3d 552 at 553 p. 1410
- Town House St., LLC v. New Fellowship Full Gospel Baptist Church, Inc. 29 AD3d 893 at 894 p. 1410