Within the context of a mortgage foreclosure action initiated by Citimortgage in 2014, the defendant, VRR, did not respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment and foreclosure order in 2018. Years later, in 2022, she moved to vacate the judgment, arguing that she was never properly served with legal papers and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.
The dispute revolved around CPLR 308(2), which governs how service of process must be executed. The process server claimed to have served someone of suitable age at the defendant’s residence and mailed the summons accordingly. However, the defendant rebutted this with specific facts: the property was a two-family home with separate entrances, and she asserted no one came to her apartment on the date of service.
Because her sworn denial raised a legitimate question about whether service was made at her actual dwelling, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s denial and ordered a hearing to determine the validity of service. If service was improper, the foreclosure judgment could be vacated.
In short: the court pressed pause on the foreclosure sale, pending a deeper look into whether the defendant was properly brought into the case in the first place.
Stirred but not served?
# # #