Pilawa v. DalbeyPilawa v. Dalbey
—Order unanimously
The testimony of the process server established that defendant was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), and thus defendant was not entitled to vacatur of the default judgment on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over her (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [4]). In addition, defendant failed to establish that her default was excusable, and thus she was not entitled to vacatur of the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1). Defendant contended that she did not have notice of the foreclosure action, but the evidence at the hearing established that she was aware of the action. Finally, defendant was not entitled to relief under CPLR 317. Although she was served with the summons other than by personal delivery, the evidence at the hearing established that she personally received notice of the summons for the foreclosure action (see, Facey v Heyward,