U.S. Bank N.A. v. PepeU.S. Bank N.A. v. Pepe
Published by
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak (Reed Smith LLP, New York, NY [Andrew B. Messite and Joseph B. Teig], of counsel), for appellant.
C. Steve Okenwa, P.C., New York, NY, for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sylvia G. Ash, J.), dated September 7, 2016. The order, upon a hearing to determine the validity of service of process and a report of a referee (Miriam P. Sunshine, R.), dated May 26, 2016, in effect, granted the motion of the defendant Anthony Pepe pursuant to
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion of the defendant Anthony Pepe is denied, and the judgment of foreclosure and sale dated October 27, 2014, is reinstated.
In November 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against Anthony Pepe (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant failed to timely appear or answer the complaint. Thereafter, the Supreme Court, upon the plaintiff‘s motion, issued a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated October 27, 2014. In June 2015, the defendant moved, inter alia, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service. In opposition, the plaintiff argued that the defendant waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by appearing in the action. By order dated October 7, 2015, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a referee for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process. After the hearing, the referee issued a report in which she found that service was not properly made and that jurisdiction was not obtained over the defendant. The defendant moved pursuant to
The filing of a notice of appearance in an action by a party‘s counsel serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss pursuant to
The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant‘s motion.
RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court