Roderick Sidney v Angelo Genova
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Civil procedure—service of process and personal jurisdiction in a personal injury default judgment.
Denied the defendant’s CPLR 5015(a)(4) motion to vacate a default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction without holding a hearing.
The denial of the motion without a hearing was reversed and the matter was remitted for a traverse hearing on service.
Although the process server’s affidavit established prima facie proper service under CPLR 308(2) [permits delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode, plus mailing to the last known residence], the defendant’s sworn, specific denial of residence at the service address, supported by documents, rebutted that presumption and required a hearing; plaintiff’s estoppel theory failed as a matter of law because a failure to update an address with a city agency is not affirmative conduct. Under CPLR 5015(a)(4) [allows vacatur of a default for lack of personal jurisdiction], a default must be vacated if personal jurisdiction is lacking.
Background
Plaintiff alleged he was electrocuted by exposed wires at a residential property owned by defendant in May 2009. He commenced the action in November 2010. Defendant did not appear or answer. After a default on liability and an inquest, a clerk’s judgment entered on August 26, 2019 awarded plaintiff $90,000. In December 2022, defendant moved to vacate the judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(4) for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting improper service because he did not reside at the address of service and identifying his actual residence, with supporting documentation.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Richmond County, denied the branch of the motion under CPLR 5015(a)(4) without a hearing.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed, with costs, and remitted for a hearing to determine whether defendant was properly served under CPLR 308(2). The court held that while the process server’s affidavit made a prima facie showing, defendant’s detailed sworn denial and corroborating documents rebutted it, necessitating a traverse hearing. The court rejected plaintiff’s estoppel argument because listing the property address with the New York City Department of Finance did not constitute affirmative conduct to mislead service.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that proper service must strictly comply with CPLR 308(2) and that a process server’s affidavit, though prima facie proof, is rebuttable by a specific, documented denial of service facts, which then requires a traverse hearing. Clarifies estoppel limits: mere failure to update an address with a government agency does not amount to affirmative conduct barring a service challenge. Under CPLR 5015(a)(4) [allows vacatur of a default for lack of personal jurisdiction], lack of jurisdiction renders subsequent proceedings null and void.
When a defendant specifically denies residence at the service address and provides corroboration, courts must hold a traverse hearing before denying relief under CPLR 5015(a)(4); estoppel requires affirmative misconduct, not administrative address omissions.