PETER B. SKELOS
Bernard Ouziel, Great Neck, N.Y., for appellants. Steven Zalewski & Associates, P.C., Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Dustin Bowman of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goodstein, J.), entered September 30, 2013, which, upon an order of the same court (Mahon, J.) dated June 26, 2013, determining, after a hearing, that they were validly served with process and denying their motion to vacate an order of the same court (Goodstein, J.) entered February 4, 2013, upon their default in appearing or answering, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the total sum of $21,700.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In reviewing a determination made by a hearing court, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the hearing court, and this Court may render its own determination as warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809; Doubletree Hotel Tarrytown v. Chacko, 115 A.D.3d 703, 704, 981 N.Y.S.2d 584; Bartow v. Lugo, 66 A.D.3d 936, 937, 887 N.Y.S.2d 678; Mastroianni v. Rallye Glen Cove, LLC, 59 A.D.3d 686, 687, 874 N.Y.S.2d 210). The documents submitted by the plaintiff, including the affidavits of service and the process server's logbook and spreadsheets, and the credible testimony of the process server, constituted prima facie proof that the process server delivered copies of the summons and complaint to the individual defendant ( see Doubletree Hotel Tarrytown v. Chacko, 115 A.D.3d at 704, 981 N.Y.S.2d 584; Greck v. Anish, 229 A.D.2d 375, 375–376, 645 N.Y.S.2d 68). The inconsistencies between the description of the individual defendant in the affidavits of service and the individual defendant's appearance in court almost 1 1/2 years later were not significant ( see Rowlan v. Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 100 A.D.2d 844, 845, 474 N.Y.S.2d 84; cf. Skyline Agency v. Coppotelli, Inc., 117 A.D.2d 135, 139, 502 N.Y.S.2d 479). The hearing court's determination that service of the summons and complaint was properly effected upon the defendants is supported by the evidence in the record ( seeCPLR 308[1]; 311[a][1]; Doubletree Hotel Tarrytown v. Chacko, 115 A.D.3d at 704, 981 N.Y.S.2d 584; Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel, 101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.S.2d 896; King v. Gil, 69 A.D.3d 678, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655; Ortiz v. Jamwant, 305 A.D.2d 477, 758 N.Y.S.2d 829).
The defendants' remaining contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court ( see Parker v. Navarra, 102 A.D.3d 935, 937, 958 N.Y.S.2d 754).