### Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC v Cruz 2024 NY Slip Op 32653(U) July 29, 2024 CivilCourt

of the City of New York, Richmond County Docket Number: Index No. CV-005878-13/RI Judge: Matthew P. Blum Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local governmentsources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

### CIVIL COURT OF

### THE 

### CITY OF 

### NEWYORK

COLTNTY OF 

### RICHMOND 

# -------------x IndexNo.CV-005878-f3iRI PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES. 

### LLC



### Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER -agalnst 

### HON. 

### MATTHEW P. 

### BLUM JUDGE 

### CIVIL COURT RICHARD CRUZ Defendant 

### ---------x Papers 

### Numbered 

### Defendant'sOrdertoShowCausetoVacatetheJudgment................................ I 

### Plaintiffs Oppositionto Defendant's Order 

### to Show Cause, 

### Exhibits 2 

### Upon the

### foregoing cited papers, the 

### Decision/Order onthe 

### motions is as

### follows: 

### I: PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

### On 

## or about November 

### 22, 2013, 

### Portfolio Recovery Associates, 

## LLC (hereinafter, 

### Plaintiff) 

### filed a summons and 

### complaint 

### with the Court 

### for a breach 

### of contract 

### claim against 

### Richard Cruz (hereinafter, Defendant) 

### in the amount 

### of 

### $4,425.28. On June 

### 6, 2014, after no answer was interposed 

### by the Defendant, a default 

### judgment was entered against Defendant 

### for $4,650.28. Subsequent 

### tothe entry 

### ofjudgment, the Defendant's wages began being 

### gamished. As a result, on 

### May 15, 2024, Defendant 

### filed an

### order to Show cause 

### to vacate the default

### judgment. In this Order

### to Show Cause, Defendant makes a

### jurisdictional argument and claims that he was never served 

### with the summons and 

### complaint. Defendant further argues pursuant to

### cpLR $501 5,

1 

### [* 1]

### that he has 

### a reasonable excuse 

### for default because 

### of this lack 

### of service and

### that he has a

meritorious defense because he believes he has paid 

### all his debt atthe 

### time 

### ofa refinancing. 

### on or about 

### May 

### 22,2024, Plaintiff opposes Defendant's 

### orderto Show 

### cause. 

### plaintiff first opposes Defendant's 

### jurisdictional argument and argues thatthe

### affidavit of service

### from the process server gives rise

### tothe presumption 

### of proper 

### service. Furthermore, 

### Plaintiff argues that Defendantwaived his 

### right to argue lack 

### ofpersonal

### jurisdiction by 

### making payments pursuantto

ajudgment or wage gamishment 

### for a substantial period of

### time, namely, since A

## pil 17,2024. 

### ln addition, 

### Plaintiff arguesthat Defendant's argument under

### cpLR $5015 should be denied because he

### fails to demonstrate a reasonable excuse 

### for default and a 

### meritorious defense. On June 

### 12,2024, the matter appeared before 

### Your Honor andwastaken on submission. The 

### court hereby acknowledges and 

### commends the Richmond 

### county 

## civil court summer 2024 

### Intem Class:

### Athira

### Anil, Anais Bundy, Richa Chandra, 

### Athena 

### Lam, Junlin Shi, and Susan Yegoryan for 

### their dedicated 

### efforts in 

### their assistance 

### in preparing this decision.


## II: DISCUSSION 

### A: Personal

### Jurisdiction. As detailed above, Defendant argues that this Court lacks

### jurisdiction because he was never served 

### with the summons and 

### complaint. Plaintiff opposes 

### said argument 

### by relying on the 

### affidavit 

### ofservice ofprocess server, 

### Anthony Yannucci. When a defendant seeks 

### to vacate a default 

### judgment by raising 

### ajurisdictional objection, the court is required to resolve the

### jurisdictional question before determining whether to vacatethe default 

### judgment. Canelas

### v. Flores, 112 

### A.D.3d B7l (2d. Dep,t 2013); 

### Emisrant 

### Mtge.Co.v. Westervelt, 105 

### A.D.3d 896,897 

### (2d.Dep't2013); Roberts v.

### Anka,43 

### A.D.3d752,753 (2d,.Dep,t

2 

### [* 2]2007). The burden 

### ofproving that personal

### jurisdiction was acquired 

### over a defendant rests

### with

a

### plaintiff. Absent 

### swom specific factual allegations to the contrary to refute 

### it, a process server's 

### aflidavit 

### of service constitutes rebuttable 

### prima facie evidence 

### of proper 

### service. See: Federal 

### N e.Assn. v. astoldi 187

### A.D.3d 988, 989 (2d. 

### Dep't 2020); 

### Nationsrar Mtqe.. 

### LLC v. 

### Einhom, 185

### A.D.3d 945, 946 (2d. 

### Dep't 2020); SBC Bank 

### USA N.A. v.Assouline 

### t1t A.D.3d 603,604 (2d. 

### Dep't 2019). An evidentiary traverse hearing to determine the

### validity ofservice 

## of process is required when a defendant asserts 

### specific and detailed facts

### to rebut the statements 

### in the process server's 

### affidavit. onewest Bank FSB

### v. Perl4 200 

### A.D.3d 1052, 1055 

### (2d. Dep,t 2021); 

### HSBC Bank United States. 

### N.A. v. Rahmanan, 194

### A.D.3d 792 (2d. 

### Dep't 2021); Wells Fargo Bank. 

### N.A. v. 

### Enitan,200A.D.3d 736,738 

### (2d.Dep,t202t). As Defendant has raised 

### ajurisdictional defect argument, the Court must resolve this issue before conducting any aaalysis asto whether Defendant had a reasonable excuse 

### for default and a meritorious defense under 

### CPLR $5015. Accordingly, in support 

### of its 

### opposition to Defendant,s 

### jurisdictional argument, 

### Plaintiff relies 

### on the 

### aflidavit of service 

### from process server, 

### Anthony Yannucci, 

### from 

### December3,2013. This 

### affidavit of service was

### filed with the 

### court on December 

### 12,2013. However, this document is not included in 

### Plaintiffs papers and 

### Plaintiffstates in 

### their opposition that 

### they were unable 

### to obtainthe

### affidavit 

### of service 

### to include 

### with their exhibits because 

### ofthe short 

### retum date, 

### May 22,2024 to June 

### 12,2024. Nevertheless, 

### plaintiff made no 

### petition seeking leave

### from the Court

### for any extension 

### of time or an 

### adjoummentto obtain said 

### document. 

### Plaintiff also 

### did not request 

### to

### file supplemental 

### papers. 

### While not

### explicitly stated, 

### Plaintiff is asking 

### this Court

### to go 

### into the Court 

### file and take

### judicial notice 

### of the

### affidavit 

### of service 

### previously 

### filed.

3 

### [* 3]

### "The burden is onthe 

### Plaintiffto prove 

### compliance.... The court

### will not search the record



### in order 

### to review the 

### affrdavit 

### of service." Citibank (South Dakota). 

### N.A. v.

### Cigna 2021 

### NY Slip Op 

### 50093(U),3 (Civ. Ct. 

### Kings County 2021) quoting Wells F 

### N.A. v. 2020 

### NY o Slip Op 30848 

### (U), 18 (Civ. Ct. Kings County

### 2020). The Court has been wamed not to take

### judicial notice of unauthenticated or unreliable documents in the court

### file. Caffrey v. North 

### Arrow Abstract Settlement Servs. Inc. 160

### A.D.3d 121,127 (2d. 

### Dep't 

### 2018). Likewise, the Court is cautioned only to take

### judicial notice

## of "factswhich are capable 

### of immediate and accurate determination by resortto easily accessible sources 

### ofindisputable accuracy

## ". Hamilton v. 

### M 23 

### N.Y.3d 592,603 (2014) quoting Peoole v.Jones,73 N.Y.2d 

### 427,431 (1989). 

### Plaintiff is correct 

### in stating that an 

### affidavit of service is 

### prima facie evidence 

### of proper 

### service. However, as 

### Plaintiff has 

### failed to attachthe 

### affrdavit 

### of service 

### to the 

### affirmation, the Coun is unable to give any benefit of the presumption of proper 

### service. 

### Unlike many cases where there is no

### affldavit of service ever

### filed or

### filed on a

### different matter, here, an

### affidavit ofservice
wasfiled,

### just not attached 

### tothe 

### Plaintiff's 

### motion. Although the 

### Court is 

### physically able 

### to go through the

### file and incorporate a document 

### by reference as an

### exhibit to a 

### motion, the Court has


### no obligation 

### to search 

### the record 

### for an 

### exhibit or evidence. 

### In fact, doing so

### would lead to dangerous 

### territory where acourt could ostensibly 

## fill in the gap and insert 

### itselfinto aproceeding where one 

### party or another

### falls short 

### in its 

### production of evidence, thus, 

### interjecting 

### itselfinto a proceeding and 

### denying due process 

### or shifting a 

### burden. Various documents 

### find their way into

acourt

### file. This does not mean 

### all documents are reliable or 

### authentic. As the

### affidavit of service is not adocument 

### widely considered to have undisputed 

### reliability or accuracy, the Court 

### will not take 

### judicial notice of

### it. If affidavits of service were held in this regard, traverse hearings would not exist. 

### While Defendant does 

### not specifically state 

### any detailed facts 

### in his Order

### to Show Cause, the

4 

### [* 4]burden remains on 

### the 

### Plaintiff to demonstrate 

### proper

### service. In the absence 

### ofan affidavit

## of

service, the

### only way 

### to determine that issue is

### to hold atraverse hearing. 

### Plaintiff's argument regarding 

### any waiver 

## of a

### jurisdictional defect 

### is inaccurate. In addition 

### to the approximate one month 

## (Apil 2024

### to May 2024)

### of wage gamishment being 

### dramatically short

### of any period 

### of time the Courts have determined 

### to be 

### sufficient to

## fit the substantial 

### period 

### of time required 

### for waiver, 

### it has been determined that 

### waiver does 

### not apply where a defendant's 

### only participation 

### in the action 

### is the submission

### of a 

### motion

### to vacate a default 

### judgment 

### for lack 

### of personal

### jurisdiction. HSBC 

### Bank 

### usA. N.A. v.

### whitelock, 214 

### A.D.3d 855, 856-857 

### (2d. 

### Dep't 2023) quoting Cadlerock Joint ture- 

### L. 

### v. Kiersted 119 Ven A.D.3d' 

### 627, 628 (2d. 

### Dep't 

### 2014). Thus, as Defendant made no appearance 

### in this matter other than an Order 

### to Show Cause to vacatethe 

### defaultjudgment for lack 

### ofjurisdiction with an answer arguing lack 

### ofjurisdiction, Plaintiff's waiver argument does not apply. 

### Accordingly, Defendant's 

### Orderto Show Cause to vacatethe

### defaultjudgment isto be held 

### in abeyance pending the determination 

### of atraverse hearing.



### B: CPLR 85015. As the Court must 

### first resolve the issue

### ofjurisdiction, the Court 

### will not conduct any analysis asto 

### Defendant's proposed reasonable excuse 

### for default or 

### meritorious defense 

### until the

### jurisdictional issue is resolved.

5 

### [* 5]

## III: CONCLUSION Based on the

### foregoing, 

### ORDERED, 

### that 

### all judgments, 

### liens, wage gamishments, 

### income executions, and restraining notices

### with respect to the Defendant be stayed 

### immediately. 

### ORDERED, that Defendant's Order 

### to Show Cause to vacate the default 

### judgment be held in abeyance pending the determination 

### ofa traverse hearing, and 

### it is

### further 

### ORDERED, that the parties are

### to appear and produce evidence

### for atraverse hearing 

### on Seotem 

### 4.2024 

### at 

## I 1:30

### AM in Part

### 62. Should the parties have 

### any scheduling 

### or witness issues, 

### the parties 

### must contact 

### my 

### court Attomey, Frank Prospero, Esq., 

### at 71g-675-g43g or FProsper@nycourts.gov 

### in advance 

### of the hearing 

### date. Barring an emergency, adjoumment requests

### will not be honored 

### without advance notice to the Court. This 

### foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order 

### ofthe Court. Dated: Staten Island, 

### NewYork July 

### 29,2024 ASN by FP on 07/29/2024 

### TTHEWP. BLUM, J.C.C. 

# *$m,b?'H'"

6 

### [* 6]