Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York v 373 8th St. Realty

[*1] Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York v 373 8th St. Realty 2012 NY Slip Op 51070(U) Decided on June 11, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 11, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-650 K C.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

373 8TH STREET REALTY, Respondent, -and- NICK FASELIS, Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Laurie Lynne Lau, J.), dated September 23, 2008. The order denied a motion by respondent-appellant Nick Faselis to vacate so much of a default judgment as was entered against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this enforcement proceeding brought by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development to, among other things, compel the correction of housing code violations, Nick Faselis, the registered managing agent of the subject premises, moved to vacate so much of a default judgment as had been entered against him, on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Civil Court denied his motion, and we affirm. [*2]

"Having affirmatively provided petitioner with statutorily required contact addresses (see Administrative Code of the City of NY, § 27-2098 [3]) and having taken no steps to amend the registration information (Code § 27-2100), [appellant] may not now be heard to argue that service at the registered addresses was improper" (Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of NY v 532-536 W. 143rd St. Realty Corp., 8 Misc 3d 136[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51246[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]). Furthermore, appellant's conclusory allegations, that service as described in the affidavits of service was unlikely or impossible, were insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service (cf. Roberts v Anka, 45 AD3d 752 [2007]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012