Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), entered February 16, 2011.
Belcrest Apts., LLC v Hall
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
The order denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
After a default judgment had been entered against defendant in this action for rent arrears, defendant moved to, among other things, vacate the default judgment and place the matter on the trial calendar. By order dated February 24, 2010, defendant's motion was granted and defendant's affidavit in support of the motion was deemed to be her answer unless within 30 days defendant submitted a more detailed answer. Defendant did not submit a more detailed answer. By notice of motion returnable August 12, 2010, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her person based on an allegedly improper service of process. That motion was denied based on defendant's nonappearance. By notice of motion returnable January 3, 2011, defendant again moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper service. By order entered February 7, 2011, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion, noting that defendant had waived the jurisdictional objection by failing to submit a more detailed answer. Defendant appeals from this order.
We affirm. Defendant's initial motion to vacate the default judgment and place the action on the trial calendar, which did not seek to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, constituted her submission to the jurisdiction of the court and a waiver of the jurisdictional defense (see Parasconda v Club Mateem, Inc., 33 Misc 3d 141[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52201[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). In any event, defendant further waived the jurisdictional objection by failing to submit a more detailed answer raising the objection within the time allowed.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.