FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO .
`
`6 0
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF :
`04 / 15 / 2 0 1 9
`
`PRESENT:
`
`J. S. C.
`
`At an IAS 11mmapPat
`the
`Supreme Court of
`the State of New
`York, held in and for the Comay of
`at
`the Comthouse,
`at 360
`Kings,
`
`2019.
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT OF THE STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`NYCTL
`MELLON
`
`TRUST AND THE BANK
`OF NEW YORK
`2016-A
`AS COLLATERAL
`AOENT
`AND CUSTODIAN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`INDEX
`
`NO.
`
`503524/2017
`
`ORDER
`
`TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`JAMAL
`
`UDDIN;
`
`MOE KAMAL
`
`UDDIN
`
`ET AL.,
`
`Defendant(s),
`
`X
`
`UPON
`
`the Affirmation
`
`of Reza M.
`
`Islam,
`
`Esq.,
`
`and
`
`the 1xoceedings
`
`had
`
`herein,
`
`let
`
`the
`
`Plaintiff
`
`show cause
`
`before me at
`
`ofNew
`
`York,
`
`COUNTY
`
`OF KINOS,
`
`the Courthouse
`/df
`at Part
`
`1,
`
`thereof,
`
`locates
`
`at Sgame
`
`Court
`
`of
`
`the State
`
`Room W/
`
`to b
`th.
`
`held
`
`at
`
`the Courthouse
`
`located
`
`Adams
`
`New
`
`on
`
`of
`
`at
`
`at
`
`360
`
`Street,
`
`Brooidyn,
`
`York,
`
`the 7_
`
`--ày
`
`2019,
`
`A.M.&Mt
`
`o'clock
`
`in the forenoon
`
`of
`
`that
`
`day,
`
`or as soon
`
`hereafter
`
`as the parties
`
`can
`
`be
`
`heard, why
`
`an Onier
`
`should
`
`not be made
`
`to:
`
`a)
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR § 5015(a)(1)
`
`and (4) and
`
`n the interest
`
`of f ratice,
`
`vacate
`
`the Order
`
`of Reference,
`
`Judgment
`
`of
`
`Fomlosure
`
`and
`
`Sale,
`
`and
`
`default
`
`judgment,
`
`due to lack
`
`of service
`
`of
`
`the S
`
`and Complaint;
`
`b)
`
`Upon
`
`vacatur
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Judgment
`
`of Forect
`
`and Sale,
`
`dismina
`
`the
`
`action
`
`for
`
`lack
`
`ofjurisdiction
`
`upon
`
`the Defendant
`
`to CPLR §321l(a)(8);
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`COURT
`OF KINGS
`
`OF THE STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`-----------
`-------------------
`NYCTL
`TRUST
`AND THE BANK
`2016-A
`NEW YORK MELLON
`AS COLLATERAL
`AGENT
`AND CUSTODIAN,
`
`---
`
`OF
`
`X
`
`INDEX
`
`NO.
`
`503524/2017
`
`AFFIRMATION
`OF DEFENDANT'S
`SHÓW CAUSE
`
`IN SUPPORT
`ORDER
`
`T_O
`
`-against-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`JAMAL
`
`UDDIN;
`
`MOE KAMAL
`
`UDDIN
`
`ET AL.,
`
`---------
`
`Defendant(s),
`---------
`
`X
`
`REZA
`
`M.
`
`ISLAM,
`
`ESQ.,
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§ 2106,
`
`and under
`
`the
`
`penalty
`
`of perjury,
`
`affirms
`
`the following
`
`to be true:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney
`
`duly
`
`licensed
`
`to practice
`
`law in the State
`
`of New York
`
`and
`
`the
`
`principal
`
`of
`
`the Cardenas
`
`Islam
`
`& Associates,
`
`attorneys
`
`for
`
`the Defendants,
`
`Jamal
`
`Uddin
`
`and
`
`Moe
`
`Kamal
`
`Uddin
`
`(collectively
`
`referred
`
`to as the
`
`"DaSadant").
`
`I am fully
`
`'==m==
`
`with
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case based
`
`on a review
`
`of
`
`the Court
`
`files
`
`and conversstiera
`
`with my clients.
`
`2.
`
`This
`
`Affir-atiêñ
`
`is respectfully
`
`submitted
`
`in support
`
`of Defendant's
`
`application
`
`for an Order
`
`for
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`to Show Cause why
`
`the Court
`
`should
`
`not:
`
`a)
`
`pursuañt
`
`to CPLR
`
`§ 5015(a)(1)
`
`and
`
`(4)
`
`and
`
`in the
`
`interest
`
`of
`
`justice,
`
`vacate
`
`the Order
`
`of Reference,
`
`Judgment
`
`of
`
`Foreclosure
`
`and
`
`Sale,
`
`and
`
`default
`
`judgment,
`
`due to lack
`
`of service
`
`of
`
`the Summ0as
`
`and Complaint;
`
`b)
`
`upon
`
`vacatur
`
`of
`
`the Judgment
`
`of Foreclosure
`
`and Sale,
`
`dismiss
`
`the action
`
`for
`
`lack
`
`ofjurisdictioñ
`
`upon
`
`the DeS=da=+
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§3211(a)(8);
`
`r
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`c)
`
`in the
`
`alternative,
`
`order
`
`the
`
`conduct
`
`of a traverse
`
`hearing
`
`to determine
`
`the
`
`validity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`service
`
`upon
`
`the Defendant
`
`of
`
`the Summons
`
`and Complaint
`
`and pre-foreclosure
`
`notices;
`
`d)
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§2201,
`
`stay
`
`the foreclosure
`
`action
`
`until
`
`this
`
`application
`
`is
`
`determined;
`
`e)
`
`and such
`
`other
`
`reliefs
`
`that
`
`the court
`
`deems
`
`just
`
`and proper.
`
`3.
`
`No
`
`prior
`
`applicati0ñ
`
`has been made
`
`for
`
`the
`
`above
`
`relief.
`
`Defendant's
`
`arguments
`
`and supporting
`
`grounds
`
`are more
`
`fully
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`below.
`
`PROCEDURAL
`
`HISTORY
`
`4.
`
`On
`
`or about
`
`June
`
`12, 2006,
`
`a two
`
`family
`
`resider
`
`tial
`
`property,
`
`coñm6ñly
`
`known
`
`as 577 Drew
`
`Street,
`
`Brooklyn,
`
`NY 11208
`
`(the
`
`subject
`
`"Property"
`
`and/or
`
`the
`
`"Premises")
`
`was
`
`transferred
`
`to Jamal
`
`Uddin
`
`("Mr.
`
`Jamal"
`
`and/or
`
`the "Defendant")
`
`by virtue
`
`of a Deed
`
`dated
`
`June
`
`12, 2006.
`
`The
`
`2006 Deed
`
`is annexed
`
`herein
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A".
`
`5.
`
`On
`
`or about
`
`the
`
`same
`
`date,
`
`Jamal
`
`executed
`
`a note
`
`dated
`
`June
`
`12, 2006
`
`for
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of Four
`
`IIüñdred
`
`Twenty
`
`One Thousand
`
`Three
`
`Hundred
`
`Fifty
`
`Dollars
`
`($421,350.00)
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of GreenPoint
`
`Mortgage
`
`Füñding,
`
`Inc.
`
`(the
`
`"Note").
`
`To
`
`secure
`
`the Note,
`
`Mr.
`
`Jamal
`
`executed
`
`a mortgage
`
`in favor
`
`of Mortgage
`
`Electronic
`
`Registration
`
`Systems,
`
`Inc.
`
`("MERS")
`
`(the
`
`"Mortgage").
`
`6.
`
`The Mortgage
`
`was assigned
`
`by GreenPoint
`
`Mortgage
`
`fundin5
`
`Inc.
`
`to GreenPoint
`
`Mortgage
`
`Funding,
`
`LLC
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of an Assignment
`
`of Mortgage
`
`dated
`
`February
`
`8, 2010
`
`(the
`
`"2010
`
`Assignment").
`
`2
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`7.
`
`The Mortgage
`
`was also
`
`assigned
`
`by MERS,
`
`as nominee
`
`for GreeñPoint
`
`Mortgage
`
`Funding,
`
`Inc.,
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of an Assignment
`
`of Mortgage
`
`dated October
`
`4, 2013
`
`to Capital
`
`One,
`
`N.A.
`
`(the "2013
`
`Assignment").
`
`8.
`
`On
`
`or
`
`about
`
`April
`
`13,
`
`2015,
`
`Mr.
`
`Jamal
`
`transferred
`
`fifty-percent
`
`(50%)
`
`of
`
`the
`
`interest
`
`in the property
`
`to his brother,
`
`Moe
`
`Uddin
`
`("Mr.
`
`Moe")
`
`through
`
`a Deed
`
`dated
`
`April
`
`13,
`
`the deed
`
`is attached
`
`hereto
`
`2015.
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"B".
`
`9.
`
`By
`
`virtue
`
`of
`
`such
`
`transfer,
`
`Mr.
`
`Jamal
`
`and Mr. Moe
`
`became
`
`co-owners
`
`of
`
`the
`
`property.
`
`Jamal
`
`and Moe
`
`have
`
`been
`
`residing
`
`in
`
`the
`
`property
`
`together
`
`with
`
`their
`
`respective
`
`spouses
`
`in different
`
`units
`
`in the property.
`
`10.
`
`On or about
`
`August
`
`3, 2016,
`
`a tax
`
`lien
`
`certificate
`
`ivas
`
`issued
`
`in favor
`
`of The Bank
`
`of New York Mellon,
`
`annexed
`
`herein
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"C".
`
`11.
`
`On February
`
`22, 2017,
`
`during
`
`a trial modification
`
`of
`
`the mortgage,
`
`unbeknownst
`
`to the Defendant,
`
`the NYCTL
`
`2016-A
`
`TRUST
`
`and the Bank
`
`of New York Mellon
`
`as Collateral
`
`Agent
`
`and Custodian
`
`("Plaintiff")
`
`commenced
`
`a tax
`
`sale foreclosure
`
`action
`
`against
`
`the Defendant
`
`in the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`Kings
`
`County
`
`filed
`
`as Index
`
`No.
`
`50352442017.
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`the Summons,
`
`Complaint,
`
`and Notice
`
`of Pendency
`
`is annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"D".
`
`12.
`
`The
`
`Plaintiff
`
`claims
`
`to have
`
`served
`
`Jamal
`
`and Moe
`
`on March
`
`4, 2017
`
`at 11:55
`
`Court
`
`a.m.
`
`by
`
`delivering
`
`the Notice
`
`of Regarding
`
`Availability
`
`of Electronic
`
`Filing
`
`Supreme
`
`Cases,
`
`Summons
`
`and Notice,
`
`Complaiñt,
`
`Notice
`
`of Pcadcacy
`
`o Action,
`
`and Notice
`
`pursuañt
`
`to
`
`RPAPL
`
`1303
`
`("process")
`
`"Jane"
`
`to a
`
`Udden,
`
`a
`
`"relative"
`
`who
`
`allegedly
`
`had not
`
`given
`
`her
`
`first
`
`name,
`
`and by mailing
`
`a copy
`
`of
`
`the process
`
`on March
`
`7, 2017
`
`at
`
`the property
`
`address.
`
`Copies
`
`of
`
`the affidavits
`
`of service
`
`are annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"E".
`
`3
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`21.
`
`Because
`
`of
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`serve
`
`the mmmons
`
`and
`
`complaint
`
`upon
`
`Defendant,
`
`they
`
`had
`
`not
`
`been
`
`able
`
`to participate
`
`in the
`
`foregoing
`
`foreclosure
`
`procc÷3iñgs
`
`and
`
`had
`
`not
`
`been
`
`able
`
`to file
`
`oppositions
`
`against
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`motions
`
`and
`
`to the
`
`subsequent
`
`sale
`
`of
`
`their
`
`property.
`
`22.
`
`had Defendant
`
`been
`
`aware
`
`of
`
`the
`
`small
`
`balance
`
`Moreover,
`
`relatively
`
`allegedly
`
`owed,
`
`Defedant
`
`would
`
`have
`
`surely
`
`gone
`
`out of
`
`their way
`
`to make
`
`appropriate
`
`payment
`
`arranges
`
`upon
`
`verifying
`
`the debt.
`
`23.
`
`The Subject
`
`Property
`
`is the Defendants
`
`primary
`
`residence
`
`and worth
`
`in excess
`
`of
`
`Seven
`
`Hundred
`
`Thoüsañd
`
`Dollars
`
`($700,000.00).
`
`The
`
`tax
`
`lien
`
`judgment
`
`was
`
`for
`
`a relatively
`
`nominal
`
`amount
`
`in comparison
`
`to the value
`
`of
`
`the Subject
`
`Property.
`
`this matter
`
`on
`
`Defendant
`
`was
`
`24.
`
`While
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`pursuing
`
`default,
`
`working
`
`diligently
`
`with
`
`their
`
`home mortgage
`
`lender
`
`to avoid
`
`foreclosure.
`
`25.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`D#-=±='
`
`was paying
`
`a trial modification
`
`mortgage
`
`payment
`
`to their
`
`home
`
`mortgage
`
`company,
`
`which
`
`included
`
`payments
`
`toward
`
`property
`
`taxes,
`
`while
`
`this
`
`foreclosure
`
`matter
`
`proceeded
`
`on default.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant
`
`was
`
`never
`
`aware
`
`of
`
`this matter
`
`and would
`
`never
`
`have
`
`allowed
`
`the
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to auction
`
`the property
`
`had he been notified
`
`of
`
`the matter.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant's
`
`good
`
`faith
`
`and
`
`lack
`
`of knowledge
`
`of
`
`the matter
`
`is supported
`
`by
`
`the
`
`diligent
`
`efforts
`
`to save the home
`
`from foreciesüre
`
`with
`
`their
`
`home martgage
`
`company
`
`while
`
`this
`
`matter
`
`is proceeding.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant
`
`ültimately
`
`entered
`
`into
`
`a final modification
`
`agreement
`
`with
`
`their Home
`
`Mortgage
`
`Company
`
`and are current
`
`on their mortgage.
`
`This
`
`is worth
`
`noting
`
`bcesuse
`
`Defendant
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`•
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`•
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`would
`
`not
`
`have
`
`continned
`
`paying
`
`the mortgage
`
`if
`
`they
`
`knew
`
`they
`
`had
`
`lost
`
`their
`
`home
`
`via
`
`this
`
`instant matter.
`
`29.
`
`Subsequently,
`
`a Holdover
`
`Petition
`
`dated
`
`August
`
`23,
`
`2018
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`by BR
`
`Holdings
`
`against
`
`Defendant
`
`Jamal.
`
`The Petition
`
`is annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"L".
`
`30.
`
`BR Holdings
`
`received
`
`a warrant
`
`of eviction
`
`in the action.
`
`The warrant
`
`of eviction
`
`is annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"M".
`
`the warrant
`
`31.
`
`Prior
`
`to receiving
`
`of eviction,
`
`Defendant
`
`was
`
`not
`
`aware
`
`that
`
`he had
`
`lost
`
`title
`
`to the Subject
`
`Property.
`
`32.
`
`At
`
`all
`
`times
`
`herein,
`
`Defendant
`
`continü;d
`
`to make
`
`timely
`
`mortgage
`
`payments
`
`to
`
`his home mortgage
`
`lender
`
`who
`
`assured
`
`him during
`
`multiple
`
`telephone
`
`calls
`
`that
`
`no foreclosure
`
`existed
`
`and that
`
`the lender
`
`had not
`
`taken
`
`title.
`
`33.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Defendant's
`
`-
`
`ndn=ad
`
`payments
`
`toward
`
`the
`
`home
`
`mortgage
`
`further
`
`support
`
`that Defendant
`
`was
`
`never
`
`aware
`
`of
`
`the tax
`
`lien
`
`foreclosure
`
`and had he
`
`been
`
`aware
`
`would
`
`have
`
`immadic:cly
`
`stepped
`
`in
`
`to
`
`restrict
`
`his
`
`home
`
`from
`
`being
`
`sold
`
`for
`
`a
`
`nominal
`
`amount.
`
`34.
`
`Upon
`
`receiving
`
`the marshal's
`
`notice
`
`on the eve of
`
`the eviction,
`
`Mr.
`
`Jamal's
`
`wife
`
`filed Chapter
`
`7 Bankruptcy.
`
`35.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Mr.
`
`Jamal's
`
`wife
`
`filed
`
`bankruptcy
`
`in an exasperated
`
`home.
`
`attempt
`
`to seek
`
`legal
`
`counsel
`
`and determine
`
`how Mr.
`
`Jamal
`
`and Mr. Moe
`
`had lost
`
`their
`
`36.
`
`While
`
`it
`
`is beyond
`
`the scope
`
`of
`
`this Court
`
`to make
`
`this Ending
`
`or detcr-dñadon,
`
`Federal
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`rules
`
`and
`
`the
`
`granting
`
`of an aütematic
`
`stay
`
`by
`
`its
`
`legislative
`
`purpose
`
`is to
`
`stay
`
`all
`
`proceedings
`
`and
`
`legal matters
`
`against
`
`the
`
`debtor,
`
`like Mrs.
`
`Jamal,
`
`so that
`
`they may
`
`ascertain
`
`their
`
`position,
`
`rights,
`
`and matters
`
`against
`
`them.
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`37.
`
`Here,
`
`the
`
`family
`
`was
`
`broadsided
`
`that
`
`they were
`
`being
`
`evicted
`
`from
`
`the
`
`very
`
`home
`
`they
`
`were
`
`working
`
`and
`
`paying
`
`for
`
`on
`
`a ==*y
`
`basis.
`
`Thus
`
`Mrs.
`
`Jamal
`
`filed
`
`bankruptcy
`
`to
`
`stop
`
`the
`
`eviction
`
`and
`
`let
`
`the
`
`family,
`
`including
`
`her
`
`husband
`
`the
`
`owner,
`
`ascertain
`
`how their
`
`home
`
`had
`
`been
`
`taken
`
`from
`
`them.
`
`the
`
`on
`
`Defendant
`
`Jamal's
`
`38.
`
`Prior
`
`to
`
`eviction,
`
`February
`
`11,
`
`2019,
`
`wife,
`
`Nahida
`
`Uddin,
`
`filed
`
`a Chapter
`
`7 bankruptcy
`
`action
`
`which
`
`automatically
`
`stayed
`
`any
`
`action
`
`to evict
`
`the
`
`Nahida
`
`Uddin.
`
`The Chapter
`
`7 Voluntary
`
`Petition
`
`is annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"N".
`
`39.
`
`Counsel
`
`for BR Holdings
`
`was
`
`notified
`
`by
`
`fax
`
`and
`
`telepheñe
`
`of
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`filing
`
`prior
`
`to eviction
`
`and conducted
`
`the eviction
`
`anyway.
`
`the
`
`automatic
`
`of
`
`the
`
`the warrant
`
`of
`
`eviction
`
`was
`
`40.
`
`However,
`
`despite
`
`stay
`
`action,
`
`enforced
`
`and the Defendant
`
`and other
`
`occupants
`
`in the
`
`first
`
`floor
`
`of
`
`the property
`
`were
`
`evicted
`
`therefrom.
`
`41.
`
`On March
`
`14, 2019,
`
`Nahida
`
`Uddin
`
`("Nahida")
`
`filed
`
`an emergency
`
`application
`
`asking
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`to issue
`
`an Order
`
`for Plaintiff
`
`and BR Holdings
`
`to show cause why
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`not
`
`(i)
`
`sancticñ
`
`BR Holdings
`
`of New York,
`
`LLC,
`
`and its coüñsels,
`
`for
`
`the antematic
`
`stay,
`
`(ii)
`
`restore
`
`Nahida
`
`of
`
`the possession
`
`and teñañcy
`
`of
`
`the property,
`
`viciatiñg
`
`(iii)
`
`grant Nahida
`
`relief
`
`from the astematic
`
`stay
`
`for
`
`the sole purpose
`
`of determining
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`foreclosure
`
`sale was a valid
`
`exercise
`
`of
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court's
`
`authority
`
`on the grõüñd
`
`of Nahida
`
`'s
`
`claim that
`
`the court
`
`lacked
`
`personal
`
`jurisdictice
`
`over
`
`the Nahida
`
`and other
`
`parties
`
`aw-
`
`inted with
`
`the sale.
`
`42.
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`issued
`
`an order
`
`restraining
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`or any other
`
`party
`
`from
`
`leasing
`
`the property
`
`and further
`
`ordered
`
`a hearing
`
`on the issue
`
`of violatieñ
`
`of
`
`the as†=
`
`tic
`
`stay.
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`The Court
`
`also
`
`allowed
`
`the Defcadañt
`
`to take
`
`such necessary
`
`action
`
`to vacate
`
`the jüdgñient
`
`in the
`
`Kings
`
`County
`
`Supreme
`
`Court.
`
`The Bankruptcy
`
`Court Order
`
`is annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"O".
`
`43.
`
`Concurrently,
`
`after
`
`hiring
`
`em'ncal
`
`to
`
`investigate
`
`and
`
`research
`
`the
`
`matter
`
`Defandant
`
`now makes
`
`this
`
`instant
`
`appH-an
`
`to vacate
`
`the Judgmêñt
`
`of Foreclosure
`
`and Sale
`
`on
`
`the grounds
`
`of
`
`the lack
`
`of personal
`
`jurisdicticñ
`
`and all other
`
`relief
`
`the Court may
`
`deem proper.
`
`AGRUMENTS
`
`L
`
`Pursuant
`
`Reference,
`Foreclosure
`Which
`Results
`
`To CPLR
`§ 5015(a)(4),
`Of
`Judgment
`Foreclosure
`Sale Due
`To The
`Lack
`In The Court's
`Lack
`
`The
`
`Vacate
`
`The
`
`Should
`Court
`Default
`And
`Sale,
`Judgment,
`Of The Summons
`Of Service
`And
`Of
`Jurisdiction
`Over
`The Defendant
`
`Of
`The
`
`Order
`And
`Complaint
`
`44.
`
`Defendant
`
`seeks
`
`to have
`
`the Order
`
`of Reference,
`
`Judgacñt
`
`of Foreclosure
`
`and
`
`Sale,
`
`default
`
`judgment,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`foreclosurc
`
`sale
`
`vacated
`
`on the
`
`ground
`
`of
`
`the Court's
`
`lack
`
`of
`
`persoñal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the Defendant
`
`because
`
`Plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to serve Defendant
`
`copies
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Summons
`
`and Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`In order
`
`to obtain
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the Defandant
`
`service
`
`must
`
`be made
`
`in strict
`
`compliancc
`
`with
`
`statutory
`
`"-cac-is
`
`for effecting
`
`personal
`
`service
`
`upon
`
`a natural
`
`person"
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§ 308.
`
`Macchia
`
`v Russo,
`
`67 NY2d
`
`592,
`
`594,
`
`505 N.Y.S.2d
`
`591
`
`(Crt.
`
`App.
`
`1986);
`
`see al_so. Dorfman
`
`v. Leidn_g
`
`76 N.Y.2d
`
`956,
`
`958,
`
`563 N.Y.S.2d
`
`723 (1990);
`
`Feinstein
`
`v
`
`Bergner,
`
`48 N.Y.2d
`
`234
`
`(Crt.
`
`App.
`
`1979);
`
`Krisilas
`
`v Mount
`
`Sinai
`
`Hosu.,
`
`63 A.D.3d
`
`887 (2d
`
`Dep't
`
`v Arnone,
`
`79 A.D.2d
`
`496 (2d Dep't
`
`1981).
`
`2009); McMullen
`
`46.
`
`If
`
`the court
`
`lacked
`
`jurisdicti6n
`
`over
`
`a defendant,
`
`the action must
`
`be dismissed
`
`or
`
`the Judgment
`
`unconditicñally
`
`vacated
`
`even
`
`if
`
`the defendant
`
`does
`
`not have
`
`a meritorious
`
`defense
`
`to the
`
`action.
`
`Com:rdssioners
`
`of State
`
`Ins.
`
`Fund
`
`v. Khondoker,
`
`55 A.D.3d
`
`525,
`
`865 N.Y.S.2d
`
`287
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`2008);
`
`Ananda
`
`Capital
`
`Partñcrs
`
`v. Stav Elec.
`
`Sysl1994)
`
`Ltd.,
`
`301 A.D.2d
`
`430,
`
`753 N.Y.S.2d
`
`488
`
`(1st Dep't
`
`2003);
`
`Europeañ
`
`Am.
`
`Bank & Trust Co.
`
`v. Serota,
`
`242 A.D.2d
`
`363,
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`661 N.Y.S.2d
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1997);
`
`Brent-Grand
`
`v Megavolt
`
`Corp.,
`
`97 A.D.2d
`
`783,
`
`468 N.Y.S.2d
`
`412
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1983);
`
`Mavers
`
`v. Cadman
`
`Towers,
`
`89 A.D.2d
`
`844,
`
`453 N.Y.S.2d
`
`25 (2d Dep't
`
`1982).
`
`47.
`
`The Plaintiff
`
`purports
`
`that personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`was
`
`acquired
`
`by way
`
`of substitute
`
`method
`
`of service
`
`of
`
`the Summons
`
`and Complaint
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§ 308(2).
`
`48.
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 308(2)
`
`provides
`
`for
`
`two
`
`prongs
`
`to effectuate
`
`proper
`
`service
`
`of process;
`
`the
`
`physical
`
`of
`
`the Summons
`
`to a person
`
`of
`
`suitable
`
`age
`
`and
`
`the
`
`first,
`
`delivery
`
`discretion
`
`at
`
`defendant's
`
`actual
`
`place
`
`of business,
`
`dwelling
`
`place
`
`or usual
`
`place
`
`of
`
`abode;
`
`and
`
`second,
`
`by
`
`-dEng
`
`the Sammons
`
`to the defendant's
`
`last known
`
`residence
`
`or actual
`
`place
`
`of business.
`
`49.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`is not
`
`acquired
`
`under
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 308(2)
`
`unless
`
`both
`
`the
`
`delivery
`
`and
`
`mailing
`
`requirements
`
`have
`
`been strictly
`
`coreplied
`
`with.
`
`S_ee Feinstein
`
`v. Bergner,
`
`48 N.Y.2d
`
`234,
`
`422 N.Y.S.2d
`
`356
`
`(1978);
`
`Glikman
`
`v. Horowitz,
`
`66 A.D.2d
`
`814,
`
`411 N.Y.S.2d
`
`365
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`Daguerre.
`
`S.A.R.L.
`
`112 A.D.3d
`
`1978);
`
`v. Rabizadeh,
`
`876,
`
`878,
`
`978 N.Y.S.2d
`
`80
`
`(2d Dept
`
`2013);
`
`Munoz
`
`v. Reyes,
`
`40 A.D.3d
`
`1059,
`
`1059,
`
`836 N.Y.S.2d
`
`698 (2d Dept.
`
`2007).
`
`It
`
`"is
`
`a two-
`
`step
`
`form
`
`of
`
`service
`
`in which
`
`a delivery
`
`and
`
`·nailing
`
`are both
`
`essential"
`
`(auotine
`
`Vincent
`
`C.
`
`Alexander,
`
`Practice
`
`Commentaries,
`
`McKinney's
`
`Cons
`
`Laws
`
`of NY,
`
`Book
`
`7B, CPLR
`
`§ C308:3).
`
`50.
`
`"[A]
`
`defendant
`
`may
`
`rebut
`
`that
`
`afd::it
`
`with
`
`a
`
`detailed
`
`and
`
`specific
`
`contradiction
`
`in the process
`
`server's
`
`afiarit
`
`sufficient
`
`to create
`
`a question
`
`the allegations
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`of
`
`warranting
`
`hearing."
`
`a
`
`(SFR
`
`Funding.
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Studio
`
`Fifty
`
`Corg,
`
`36 AD3d
`
`604
`
`[2nd
`
`Dept.
`
`2005];
`
`U.S.
`
`Bank
`
`Nat.
`
`Ass'n
`
`v. Vanvliet,
`
`24 AD3d
`
`906,
`
`908
`
`[3rd Dept.2005];
`
`ses
`
`also,
`
`Rosario
`
`v. Beverly
`
`Road Realty
`
`Co.,
`
`38 AD3d
`
`875 [2nd Dept
`
`2007];
`
`emphasis
`
`added).
`
`51.
`
`If no good
`
`service
`
`is exceüted
`
`on a necessary
`
`party
`
`"the
`
`final
`
`judomat
`
`[should
`
`be]
`
`reversed
`
`in its entirety
`
`and the patition
`
`dismissed."
`
`(Id.,
`
`citing
`
`Rochdale
`
`Vil.,
`
`Inc.
`
`v Goode,
`
`9
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`16 Misc
`
`3d 49,
`
`53,
`
`842 NYS2d
`
`142
`
`[App
`
`Term,
`
`2d Dept
`
`2007);
`
`Watersview
`
`Owners.
`
`Inc.
`
`v
`
`Pacimeo,
`
`13 Misc
`
`3d
`
`130[A],
`
`2006 NY Slip Op
`
`51805[U],
`
`824 NYS2d
`
`759
`
`[App
`
`Term,
`
`2d &
`
`11th Jud Dists
`
`2006].)
`
`Home
`
`Props..
`
`L.P.
`
`v. Kalter.
`
`24 Misc.
`
`3d 391,
`
`394 (N.Y.
`
`Dist. Ct. 2009)
`
`52.
`
`The
`
`lack
`
`of
`
`service
`
`discussed
`
`herein
`
`raises
`
`a fundamental
`
`juricdietianal
`
`and
`
`constitutionst
`
`issue
`
`as
`
`to whether
`
`or
`
`not
`
`the Court
`
`properly
`
`acqu.ired
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the
`
`Defendant.
`
`53.
`
`There
`
`are three
`
`(3)
`
`jurisdictional
`
`elements
`
`that must
`
`be satisfied
`
`in order
`
`for
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`to render
`
`a valid
`
`order
`
`or
`
`judgment.
`
`These
`
`elements
`
`are:
`
`(i) proper
`
`commencement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`of
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the
`
`action;
`
`(ii)
`
`proper
`
`service
`
`of process
`
`on a defendant;
`
`and (iii)
`
`proper
`
`basis
`
`person
`
`or property
`
`involved
`
`in the
`
`action.
`
`Failure
`
`of one
`
`of
`
`these
`
`three
`
`elements
`
`will mean
`
`a
`
`failure
`
`of personal
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`54.
`
`Process
`
`server
`
`Anthony
`
`McCreath
`
`("McCreath")
`
`executed
`
`an affidavit
`
`of service
`
`c!aiming
`
`that
`
`on Satárday,
`
`March
`
`4, 2017
`
`at 11:55
`
`AM,
`
`he allegedly
`
`effectuated
`
`simultaneous
`
`substitúte
`
`service
`
`on Jamal
`
`and Moe,
`
`by delivering
`
`papers
`
`at
`
`the nronerty
`
`address
`
`to a
`
`"'JANE'
`
`UDDEN
`
`- FIRST
`
`NAME
`
`NOT
`
`PROVIDED",
`
`alleged
`
`to be a relative
`
`who
`
`verified
`
`that
`
`the
`
`intended
`
`recipient
`
`setüally
`
`resides
`
`at
`
`the property.
`
`The process
`
`server
`
`describes
`
`the person
`
`as:
`
`Sex
`
`Female
`
`Skin Color
`
`Brown
`
`Hair
`
`Black
`
`A_ge
`
`40-50
`
`Height
`5'6"
`
`Weight
`
`120-140
`
`10
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`55.
`
`McCreath
`
`executed
`
`another
`
`affidavit
`
`of service
`
`cipsing
`
`that
`
`on Saturday,
`
`March
`
`4, 2017
`
`at
`
`11:55
`
`AM,
`
`he allegedly
`
`personally
`
`delivered
`
`a copy
`
`at
`
`the
`
`property
`
`address
`
`to
`
`a
`
`UDDEN
`
`- FIRST
`
`NAME
`
`NOT PROVIDED".
`
`The
`
`process
`
`server
`
`describes
`
`the person
`
`"'JANE'
`
`as:
`
`S_ex
`
`Female
`
`Skin Color
`
`Brown
`
`Hair
`
`Black
`
`Age
`
`40-50
`
`Height
`5'6"
`
`Weight
`
`120-140
`
`56.
`
`to
`
`the
`
`process
`
`server's
`
`defective
`
`Defendant
`
`submitted
`
`Contrary
`
`affidavits,
`
`affidavits
`
`demonstrating
`
`that
`
`service
`
`of
`
`process
`
`was
`
`not
`
`effectuated
`
`for
`
`the
`
`following
`
`reasons
`
`(See Exhibits
`
`"F-1"
`
`to "F-4"):
`
`57.
`
`Eirst,
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`property
`
`has
`
`three
`
`units
`
`including
`
`the
`
`basement,
`
`McCreath
`
`merely
`
`states
`
`in his affidavit
`
`that
`
`the papers were
`
`delivered
`
`to said person
`
`at
`
`the property
`
`address
`
`without
`
`actually
`
`specifying
`
`which
`
`apartmcat
`
`unit
`
`it was delivered
`
`to.
`
`dispute
`
`the
`
`property.
`
`In
`
`the
`
`58.
`
`It
`
`is without
`
`that
`
`property
`
`is a multifamily
`
`fact,
`
`warrant
`
`of eviction
`
`recognizes
`
`that
`
`the property
`
`is a multifamily
`
`property
`
`(see Exhibit
`
`"M").
`
`It
`
`serves
`
`a warrant
`
`on
`
`the
`
`first
`
`floor,
`
`second
`
`floor,
`
`and
`
`basement.
`
`Defendant
`
`Moe
`
`lives
`
`on
`
`the
`
`second
`
`floor,
`
`while
`
`Defendant
`
`Jamal
`
`lives
`
`on the first
`
`floor.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`However,
`
`the process
`
`server
`
`did not
`
`serve
`
`individual
`
`units.
`
`even
`
`argucñda
`
`that
`
`was made
`
`at
`
`the
`
`proper
`
`unit,
`
`Second,
`
`assuming
`
`delivery
`
`Defendant
`
`avers
`
`that
`
`this
`
`"'Jane'
`
`Udden"
`
`person
`
`is unknown
`
`to them and that
`
`there
`
`is no person
`
`with
`
`such
`
`descriptioñ
`
`in their
`
`entire
`
`households
`
`nor were
`
`there!
`
`any
`
`visitors
`
`or
`
`friends
`
`at
`
`the
`
`property
`
`on the above
`
`date and time.
`
`61.
`
`They
`
`state
`
`that
`
`at
`
`that
`
`time
`
`of
`
`the alleged
`
`service,
`
`the occupants
`
`of
`
`the apartment
`
`are Defendant
`
`Jamal
`
`Uddin
`
`and
`
`his wife
`
`Marjana
`
`Uddin
`
`on the| second
`
`floor.
`
`Defendant
`
`Moe
`
`11
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`Uddin
`
`and Nahida
`
`Uddin
`
`lived
`
`on the first
`
`floor.
`
`The
`
`brother's
`
`elderly
`
`parents
`
`also
`
`reside
`
`in the
`
`premises
`
`and spend most
`
`of
`
`their
`
`time
`
`in the second
`
`floor.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants
`
`Jamal
`
`and Moe,
`
`as well
`
`as their
`
`respective
`
`spmses,
`
`Marjana
`
`and
`
`Nahida,
`
`attest
`
`that
`
`other
`
`than
`
`the
`
`above-mentioned
`
`females,
`
`there
`
`are
`
`no
`
`other
`
`adult
`
`females
`
`living
`
`at
`
`the property.
`
`63.
`
`Third,
`
`the wives
`
`were
`
`not at home
`
`at
`
`the time
`
`of
`
`the alleged
`
`service.
`
`The
`
`elderly
`
`mother
`
`is way
`
`beyond
`
`the description
`
`given
`
`and would
`
`not have
`
`been
`
`able
`
`to physically
`
`answer
`
`any door
`
`as she cannot
`
`travel
`
`from the second
`
`floor
`
`without
`
`assistance.
`
`64.
`
`Indeed,
`
`"[when
`
`the
`
`requirements
`
`for
`
`service
`
`of process
`
`have
`
`not
`
`been met,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`irrelevant
`
`that
`
`dehdant
`
`may
`
`have
`
`actually
`
`received
`
`the
`
`documents."
`
`Raschel
`
`v. Rish,
`
`69 NY2d
`
`694,
`
`697,
`
`512 N.Y.S.
`
`2d 234.
`
`22. 24 f 19861.
`
`See also Feinstein
`
`v. Bergner,
`
`48 NY2d
`
`234,
`
`241.
`
`422 N.Y.S.
`
`2d 356,
`
`359-60
`
`f1979].
`
`for
`
`the
`
`service
`
`65.
`
`Even
`
`without
`
`the Second
`
`and Third
`
`reasons
`
`to be insufficient
`
`to
`
`convey
`
`jurisdiction,
`
`the
`
`First
`
`reason
`
`is
`
`determinative.
`
`In
`
`order
`
`to
`
`for
`
`the
`
`Plaintiff
`
`in
`
`the
`
`foreclosure
`
`action
`
`cause
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`to have
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`owners
`
`and
`
`the tenants
`
`to receive
`
`a judgment
`
`of
`
`foreclosure
`
`and
`
`sale,
`
`sell
`
`the property,
`
`and thereafter
`
`evict
`
`the Debtor,
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`in the foreclosure
`
`action
`
`had to properly
`
`serve
`
`the owners
`
`and tenants
`
`of
`
`the property.
`
`The
`
`sale of
`
`challenge
`
`the court's
`
`authority.
`
`the property
`
`is subject
`
`to any motions
`
`The
`
`tax
`
`lien
`
`holder
`
`right
`
`to evict
`
`the owners
`
`and the Debtor
`
`hinge
`
`upon whether
`
`the foreclosing
`
`court
`
`had jurisdiction
`
`over Moe
`
`and Jamal,
`
`the owners
`
`of
`
`the property
`
`and the tenants.
`
`66.
`
`The
`
`process
`
`server
`
`claims
`
`to have
`
`served
`
`"the
`
`property".
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`the
`
`process
`
`server
`
`did
`
`not
`
`serve
`
`either
`
`owner
`
`at
`
`their
`
`residence
`
`or usual
`
`place
`
`of abode
`
`or dwelling
`
`place
`
`as
`
`required
`
`by CPLR
`
`§ 308(2).
`
`He did not mail
`
`the service
`
`to their
`
`usual
`
`place
`
`of abode,
`
`residence,
`
`12
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`or dwelling
`
`place.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`the
`
`service
`
`of process
`
`is defective,
`
`at a -
`
`-
`
`-"-
`
`- perhaps
`
`even
`
`fabricated.
`
`67.
`
`Since
`
`in
`
`order
`
`to
`
`obtain
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction,
`
`the
`
`process
`
`server
`
`must
`
`strictly
`
`adhere
`
`to CPLR
`
`§ 308 when
`
`serving
`
`a natural
`
`person,
`
`the New
`
`York
`
`Supreme
`
`Court
`
`lacked
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the Defêñdâñt.
`
`68.
`
`Based
`
`on the above
`
`unequivocal
`
`inconsistencies
`
`and apparent
`
`fabricated
`
`claims
`
`by
`
`it
`
`is within
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`its
`
`agents
`
`and/or
`
`predecessors
`
`in
`
`interest,
`
`reason
`
`to
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`the
`
`affidavits
`
`of service
`
`by the above
`
`process
`
`server
`
`are insufficient
`
`to establish
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`fact and law.
`
`69.
`
`It appears
`
`that
`
`the alleged
`
`service,
`
`as purported
`
`by
`
`the process
`
`server
`
`amounts
`
`to
`
`an unsavory
`
`and
`
`unethical
`
`"sewer
`
`service"
`
`scheme,
`
`whereby
`
`a process
`
`server
`
`willfully
`
`discards
`
`court
`
`papers
`
`and claims
`
`duly
`
`served
`
`by recording
`
`a fictitious
`
`date
`
`and time
`
`of service
`
`they were
`
`in the
`
`log
`
`and
`
`in the
`
`court's
`
`affidavits
`
`of
`
`service.
`
`(Mem.
`
`of Senator
`
`Martin
`
`J. Knorr,
`
`Process
`
`Serving
`
`Abuse
`
`"Sewer
`
`Service,"
`
`1986 NY Legis
`
`Ann,
`
`at 180; Mem of NYS Dept
`
`of Law,
`
`July
`
`15, 1986.).
`
`The
`
`practice
`
`of
`
`filing
`
`false
`
`affidavits
`
`of service
`
`could
`
`have
`
`deprived
`
`defendet
`
`of his
`
`day
`
`in Court
`
`which
`
`would
`
`have
`
`subsequently
`
`led
`
`to a default.
`
`(See Barr
`
`v Dep't
`
`of Consumer
`
`Affairs,
`
`70 N.Y.2d
`
`821,
`
`822,
`
`523 N.Y.S.2d
`
`435 (1987).
`
`of
`
`the legal
`
`on adherence
`
`70.
`
`Lastly,
`
`the integrity
`
`and efficacy
`
`system is hinged
`
`to the
`
`requirements
`
`that
`
`guide
`
`the
`
`process.
`
`Where
`
`this
`
`integrity
`
`is brought
`
`into
`
`disrepute,
`
`including
`
`through
`
`the unethical
`
`practice
`
`of
`
`'sewer
`
`service',
`
`the Court must
`
`hold
`
`into
`
`question
`
`whcthct
`
`the
`
`erring
`
`party
`
`is fit
`
`to pursue
`
`its claim.
`
`71.
`
`"Ordinarily,
`
`a proper
`
`affidavit
`
`of a process
`
`server
`
`attesting
`
`to personal
`
`delivery
`
`a summons
`
`to a defendant
`
`is sufficient
`
`to suppoit
`
`a finding
`
`of
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`Where,
`
`however,
`
`of
`
`as
`
`13
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`here,
`
`there
`
`is a sworn
`
`denial
`
`of service
`
`by the Defendant,
`
`the affidavit
`
`of service
`
`is rebutted
`
`and
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`must
`
`establish
`
`jurisdiction
`
`by a preponderance
`
`of
`
`the evidence
`
`at a hearing.
`
`Anton
`
`v. Amato,
`
`101 A.D.2d
`
`819,
`
`475 N.Y.S.2d
`
`298
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1984);
`
`De Zego
`
`v. Donald
`
`F. Bruhn,
`
`M.D.,
`
`P. C.,
`
`99 A.D.2d
`
`823,
`
`472 N.Y.S.2d
`
`414
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1984),
`
`a_Œd 67 N.Y.2d
`
`875,
`
`501
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`801
`
`(1986)."
`
`Citing
`
`and quoting
`
`Skyline,
`
`117 A.D.2d
`
`at 139;
`
`see also Bank
`
`of N.Y.
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`Trust
`
`Co.
`
`v.
`
`v.
`
`Espeio,
`
`92 A.D.3d
`
`707,
`
`939
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`105
`
`2012);
`
`Bankers
`
`of Cal.
`
`Tsoukas,
`
`303 A.D.2d
`
`343,
`
`756 N.Y.S.2d
`
`92 (2d Dep't
`
`2003).
`
`72.
`
`It
`
`is also well
`
`settled
`
`that
`
`"[a]bsent
`
`proper
`
`service,
`
`a default
`
`judgment
`
`is a nullity,
`
`and,
`
`once
`
`it
`
`is shown
`
`that
`
`there was
`
`no service,
`
`the judgment
`
`must
`
`be üñcóñditionally
`
`vacated.
`
`Sg McMullen
`
`v Arnone,
`
`79 A.D.2d
`
`496,
`
`437 N.Y.S.2d
`
`373
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1981).
`
`Whether
`
`or not
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`has a meritorious
`
`defense
`
`is irrelevant
`
`to the
`
`questics
`
`of whether
`
`the judgment
`
`391
`
`should
`
`be vacated
`
`for
`
`a lack
`
`of
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`Pine
`
`v Town
`
`of Hoosick,
`
`56 A.D.2d
`
`692,
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`738
`
`(3d Dep't
`
`1977);
`
`Queensboro
`
`Leasing,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Resnick,
`
`78 Misc.2d
`
`919,
`
`358
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`939
`
`(Civ.Ct.Queens
`
`August
`
`29,
`
`1974).
`
`The
`
`existence
`
`of a meritorious
`
`defense
`
`only
`
`becomes
`
`significant
`
`in deter-iri-¡;
`
`whether
`
`to open
`
`a default
`
`once
`
`it
`
`is clear
`
`that
`
`service
`
`has
`
`properly
`
`been
`
`made."
`
`Mayers
`
`v Cadman
`
`Tower_s,
`
`89 A.D.2d
`
`844,
`
`453 N.Y.S.2d
`
`25 (2d Dep't
`
`231
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1982),
`
`Quoting
`
`and
`
`citing,
`
`Shaw
`
`v. Shaw,
`
`97 A.D.2d
`
`403,
`
`404
`
`467 N.Y.S.2d
`
`1983).
`
`73.
`
`It matters
`
`not whether
`
`Defendant
`
`may
`
`have
`
`become
`
`aware
`
`of
`
`the pandency
`
`of
`
`the
`
`action
`
`through
`
`any
`
`settlement
`
`conference
`
`notices
`
`or other means.;
`
`(See Markoff
`
`v South Nassau
`
`Cc==±v
`
`Hosp.,
`
`61 N.Y.2d
`
`283,
`
`473 N.Y.S.2d
`
`766
`
`[1983];
`
`McDonald
`
`v Ames
`
`Supply
`
`Co.,
`
`22
`
`N.Y.2d
`
`111,
`
`291 N.Y.S.2d
`
`328
`
`[1968]).
`
`Due
`
`process
`
`requires
`
`that
`
`notice
`
`be given
`
`in a manner
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`reasonably
`
`calculated
`
`under
`
`all
`
`the circums
`
`ances
`
`to apprise
`
`the parties
`
`of
`
`the peñdency
`
`of
`
`the
`
`action
`
`and to afford
`
`them an opportunity
`
`to be timely
`
`heard.
`
`74.
`
`"Notice
`
`received
`
`by means
`
`other
`
`than
`
`those
`
`authorized
`
`by statute
`
`does
`
`not bring
`
`a
`
`defendant
`
`within
`
`the juridiction
`
`of
`
`the
`
`court."
`
`Macchia
`
`v. Russo,
`
`67 NY2d
`
`592,
`
`505 N.Y.S.2d
`
`591, 496 N.E.2d
`
`680
`
`[1986]).
`
`75.
`
`the practice
`
`of
`
`false
`
`affidavits
`
`of service
`
`deprived
`
`Defeñdâñt
`
`of
`
`their
`
`Again,
`
`filing
`
`day
`
`in Court
`
`and has led to the current
`
`judgment.
`
`(Barr
`
`v Dep't
`
`of Consumer
`
`Affairs,
`
`supra).
`
`76.
`
`It
`
`is also well
`
`settled
`
`that
`
`"[a]bsent
`
`proper
`
`service,
`
`a default
`
`judgment
`
`is a nullity,
`
`and,
`
`once
`
`it
`
`is shown
`
`that
`
`there was
`
`no service,
`
`the judgment
`
`must
`
`be üñcoñditionally
`
`vacated.
`
`See McMullen
`
`v Arnone,
`
`79 A.D.2d
`
`496,
`
`437 N.Y.S.2d
`
`373
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1981).
`
`Whether
`
`or not
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`has a meritorious
`
`defense
`
`is irrelevâñt
`
`to the
`
`question
`
`of whether
`
`the judgment
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`v Town
`
`56 A.D.2d
`
`391
`
`should
`
`be vacated
`
`for
`
`a lack
`
`of
`
`Pine
`
`of Hoosick,
`
`692,
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`738
`
`(3d Dep't
`
`1977);
`
`Oüeeñsboro
`
`Leasing.
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Remick
`
`78 Misc.2d
`
`919,
`
`358
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`939
`
`(Civ.Ct.Queens
`
`August
`
`29,
`
`1974).
`
`The
`
`existence
`
`of a meritorious
`
`defense
`
`only
`
`hecomes
`
`significant
`
`in determining
`
`whether
`
`to open
`
`a default
`
`once
`
`it
`
`is clear
`
`that
`
`service
`
`has
`
`properly
`
`been
`
`made."
`
`Mayers
`
`v Cadman
`
`Towers,
`
`89 A.D.2d
`
`844,
`
`453 N.Y.S.2d
`
`25 (2d Dep't
`
`97 A.D.2d
`
`467 N.Y.S.2d
`
`231
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1982),
`
`Quoting
`
`and
`
`citing,
`
`Shaw
`
`v. Shaw,
`
`403,
`
`404,
`
`1983).
`
`77.
`
`The
`
`burden
`
`of proving
`
`that
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`was
`
`acquired
`
`rests
`
`at all
`
`times
`
`upon
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`in the action.
`
`Green
`
`Point
`
`Sav. Bank
`
`v. Taylor,
`
`92 A.D.2d
`
`910,
`
`460 N.Y.S.2d
`
`121 (2d Dep't
`
`1983);
`
`Bernardo
`
`v Barrett,
`
`87 A.D.2d
`
`832,
`
`449 N.Y.S.2d
`
`272
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1982),
`
`aff'_d
`
`57 N.Y.2d
`
`1006,
`
`457 N.Y.S.2d
`
`479
`
`(1982).
`
`At
`
`best, Defendant
`
`is entitled
`
`to a traverse
`
`hearing
`
`on the issue
`
`of service.
`
`15
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`II.
`
`Though
`Even
`An
`Vacate
`To
`Provide
`Several
`
`That
`Case
`Instructs
`Authority
`Order
`Under
`Judgment
`Or
`Viable
`Defenses
`To The Plaintiff's
`
`No Meritorious
`CPLR
`5015(a)(4),
`§
`Complaint
`
`Defense
`
`Is Needed
`Defendant
`
`78.
`
`We are reminded
`
`that
`
`"[w]hether
`
`or not
`
`the defendant
`
`has a meritorious
`
`defense
`
`is
`
`irrelevant
`
`to the question
`
`of whether
`
`the judgment
`
`should
`
`be vacated
`
`for
`
`a lack
`
`of
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`(Pine
`
`v Town
`
`of Hesick,
`
`56 A.D.2d
`
`692,
`
`391 N.Y.S.2d
`
`738
`
`[3d Dep't
`
`1977];
`
`Oüêêñsboro
`
`Leasing,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Resnick,
`
`78 Misc.2d
`
`919,
`
`358 N.Y.S.2d
`
`939
`
`[Civ.Ct.Queens
`
`August
`
`29,
`
`1974]).
`
`The
`
`existence
`
`of a meritorious
`
`defense
`
`only
`
`becomes
`
`significant
`
`in deter:nining
`
`whether
`
`to open
`
`a default
`
`once
`
`it
`
`is clear
`
`that
`
`service
`
`has properly
`
`been
`
`made."
`
`(Mayers
`
`v Cadman
`
`Towers,
`
`89
`
`A.D.2d
`
`453 N.Y.S.2d
`
`25
`
`[2d Dep't
`
`and
`
`citing,
`
`Shaw
`
`v. Shaw,
`
`97 A.D.2d
`
`844,
`
`1982];
`
`Quoting
`
`403,
`
`404,
`
`467 N.Y.S.2d
`
`231
`
`[2d Dep't
`
`1983]);
`
`emphasis
`
`added).
`
`79.
`
`Defendant
`
`has the absolute
`
`right
`
`to redeem the pay
`
`the tax
`
`lien
`
`prior
`
`to the sale of
`
`the
`
`property
`
`at aucticñ.
`
`Defendant
`
`is willing
`
`and
`
`capable
`
`to
`
`pay
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`that
`
`is due
`
`the
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`However,
`
`because
`
`he was
`
`not
`
`served
`
`copies
`
`of notices,
`
`indeding
`
`the
`
`sum-mens
`
`and
`
`complaiñt,
`
`Defendant
`
`was
`
`not
`
`informed
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foreclosure
`
`action
`
`and
`
`was
`
`deprived
`
`the
`
`opportunity
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`his
`
`property
`
`and
`
`have
`
`the
`
`statutory
`
`right
`
`pay
`
`the
`
`tax
`
`lien
`
`before
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`of
`
`foreclosure
`
`and sale.
`
`16
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2019 01:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68
`
`INDEX NO. 503524/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2019
`
`III.
`
`Action
`Court
`The
`Should
`Dismiss
`Over
`Jurisdictio=
`the Defendant
`Service
`Failed
`To Execute
`Plaintiff
`On Defendant
`
`On Ground
`That
`to CPLR
`Pursuant
`§ 3211(a)(8)
`of Process
`of
`the Surr:rs
`
`Court
`
`Personal
`Lacks
`Because
`The
`and
`Complaist
`
`80.
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 3211(a)(8)
`
`which
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`"[a]
`
`party
`
`may
`
`move
`
`for
`
`judgment
`
`dismissing
`
`one or more
`
`causes
`
`of action
`
`asserted
`
`against
`
`him on the ground
`
`that
`
`. . . the court
`
`has
`
`not
`
`jurisdiction
`
`of
`
`the person
`
`of
`
`the defandant
`
`"
`
`(See CPLR
`
`§ 3211[a][8]).
`
`81.
`
`When
`
`prescated
`
`with
`
`a motion
`
`under
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 321l(a)(8),
`
`"the
`
`party
`
`seeking
`
`to
`
`assert
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction,
`
`the
`
`plaintiff[,]
`
`bears
`
`the
`
`ultimate
`
`burden
`
`of
`
`proof
`
`on
`
`this
`
`issue"
`
`(Marist
`
`Coll.
`
`v Brady.
`
`84 AD3d
`
`1322.
`
`1322-13323
`
`[2d Dept
`
`2011]).
`
`82.
`
`In order
`
`to obtain
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`a defendant,
`
`service
`
`must
`
`be made
`
`in
`
`strict
`
`comp