Opinion
October 27, 1997
Appeals from Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 4, 1997, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated June 16, 1997, made upon renewal; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated June 16, 1997, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the respondent's motion to vacate its default is denied, the order dated February 4, 1997, is vacated, and the judgment of foreclosure, the order confirming the Referee's report of sale, and the Referee's deed are reinstated; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.
On its motion for renewal, the plaintiff presented evidence that effectively rebutted the respondent's preliminary showing pursuant to CPLR 317 that it had not received notice of the instant lawsuit in time to defend it. Accordingly, the respondent's motion to vacate its default should have been denied. Specifically, the plaintiff submitted a letter from the Secretary of State's office confirming that the latter had sent process by certified mail to the address designated by the respondent ( see, e.g., Engel v. Lichterman, 95 A.D.2d 536, 538, affd 62 N.Y.2d 943; see also, Riverhead Sav. Bank v. Garone, 183 A.D.2d 760, 762). Appended to the letter was a certified mail receipt, evidencing that said process had been signed for by someone at the respondent's address. The mere denial by the respondent's president of receipt, without more, was insufficient to overcome this showing of effective service of process ( see, e.g, Fleetwood Park Corp. v. Jerrick Waterproofing Co., 203 A.D.2d 238; Anchor Sav. Bank v. Alpha Developers, 143 A.D.2d 711, 713-714), especially since the respondent's president admitted that he subsequently received the order confirming the Referee's report of sale at the same address ( see, Riverhead Sav. Bank v. Garone, supra).
Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.