American Home Mtge. v Villaflor

American Home Mtge. v Villaflor 2011 NY Slip Op 00340 Decided on January 18, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 18, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
RUTH C. BALKIN
PLUMMER E. LOTT
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
2010-02750
(Index No. 4427/07)

[*1]American Home Mortgage, etc., respondent,

v

Melvin Villaflor, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.




Fenster & Kurland, LLP, New City, N.Y. (Adam K. Kurland of
counsel), for appellants.
Hogan Lovells US, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allison J.
Schoenthal, Victoria McKenney, and Jessica
L. Ellsworth of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered July 17, 2009, which, after a hearing, denied their motion to vacate so much of a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated June 4, 2008, as was entered against the defendant Melvin Villaflor upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This Court possesses the authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing which is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499). Here, the hearing court's determination that the defendant Melvin Villaflor was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(1) was supported by the credible testimony of the process server adduced at the hearing (see King v Gil, 69 AD3d 678; Federal Fin. Co. v Public Adm'r, Kings County, 47 AD3d 881, 882; Ahrens v Chisena, 40 AD3d at 788), and we discern no basis for disturbing that determination.
MASTRO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, BALKIN, LOTT and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court