Empire of America Realty Credit Corp. v. Smith
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted, judgment of foreclosure and sale dated September 27, 1995 vacated and complaint against defendant Elsie Smith dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff, as assignee of Resolution Trust Company, the receiver for Erie County Savings Bank, commenced this action to foreclose on a mortgage executed by George J. Dotterweich, Jr., and Elizabeth A. Dotterweich and assumed by Elsie Smith (defendant) and Lum Smith, defendant’s former husband. The mortgage covers property located at 471 Brantwood Road, Amherst, New York (mortgaged premises). Although plaintiff had sent correspondence to defendant at the address of the mortgaged premises, plaintiff purportedly served defendant with a copy of the summons and complaint at 155 Butler Avenue, Buffalo, the residence of Lum Smith. It is indisputed that defendant never resided at that address. According to defendant, she "came into contact with the Summons and Complaint through a third party, rather than by any service by [plaintiff’s counsel] or by [plaintiff]”. She timely served her pro se answer interposing, inter alia, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Thereafter, plaintiff allegedly served defendant with an amended summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) at the address of the mortgaged premises. Defendant did not serve an answer to the amended complaint. Thereafter, plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference was granted, based upon the statement of plaintiff’s attorney that no defendant had served an answer in the action. Defendant was not served with plaintiff’s motion papers seeking the order of reference.
Subsequently, the Referee’s computation was confirmed and plaintiff was granted a default judgment of foreclosure and sale. Defendant was not served with plaintiff’s motion papers seeking that judgment but thereafter learned of the impending sale and moved to stay it on the ground that the court had never acquired personal jurisdiction over her. At oral argument of defendant’s motion, plaintiff’s attorney stated that defendant was properly served with the amended summons and complaint and that her motion "to reopen a default judgment” therefore should be denied. County Court denied defendant’s motion for a stay. We reverse.
In her motion papers, defendant denied that she was served with either the original or amended summons and complaint (see, Greenpoint Sav. Bank v Mione, 213 AD2d 375). Although she unartfully labeled her motion as one seeking a stay, defen
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.