Opinion
March 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants' contention that personal jurisdiction was never properly acquired over the individual defendants is without merit since the defendant Lillian Newman was personally served and defendant Seymour Newman stipulated to appear "as if he were timely personally served with said papers". Moreover, nothing occurred during the course of this proceeding to vitiate the personal jurisdiction over both these defendants.
Special Term did not abuse its discretion in declining to vacate the default judgment entered against the defendants since they failed to demonstrate any valid excuse for their default (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138; Tandy Computer Leasing v. Video X Home Lib., 124 A.D.2d 530; Awad v. Severino, 122 A.D.2d 242; see also, Oberlein v. City of New York, 51 A.D.2d 805). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.