From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

VanDyke v. Kelly

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 51591 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)

Opinion

2004-1708 S C.

Decided September 30, 2005.

Appeal from (1) a default judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (James Flanagan, J.), entered August 4, 2004, and (2) an order of the same court, dated October 7, 2004. The default judgment awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $5,000. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment.

Appeal from judgment unanimously dismissed.

PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed without costs, defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment granted and action dismissed.

It is well settled that no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon default ( see e.g. Allied Builders v. Banjoku, 6 Misc 3d 130[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50075[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, defendant's appeal from the default judgment entered August 4, 2004 is dismissed.

Defendant argues that the default judgment should be vacated, and the case dismissed, because he was not served with the summons and complaint for the instant action. It is well settled that a motion to vacate a default judgment based on improper service may be made at any time ( see Roseboro v. Roseboro, 131 AD2d 557) and if the court, in fact, lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the default judgment must be vacated since it is void ( see McMullen v. Arnone, 79 AD2d 496).

Pursuant to UDCA 1803, the clerk of the Small Claims Court is to provide the defendant with notice of the claim "by ordinary first class mail and certified mail with return receipt requested." The record on appeal, however, contains no certified mail receipt or return receipt requested card nor any other indication that the notice of claim was ever served. Accordingly, the default judgment is vacated and the case dismissed ( see e.g. McMullen v. Arnone, 79 AD2d 496, supra) for lack of in personam jurisdiction over defendant. The dismissal herein does not preclude plaintiffs, if they be so advised, from commencing an action against defendant based on the same claim.


Summaries of

VanDyke v. Kelly

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 51591 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)
Case details for

VanDyke v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:CAROL VanDYKE and JACK MATHENY, Respondents, v. FRED KELLY, DBA THE…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 30, 2005

Citations

2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 51591 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)