Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff established that service of process was properly effectuated by so-called "delivery and mail" service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). Although the plaintiff did not comply with the further notice requirements of CPLR 3215 (g) (3) (i), the lack of such notice in this case does not warrant a vacatur of the judgment entered upon the defendant's default in answering. The summons had already been sent to the defendant's residence, and the defendant admitted that he had received it. "`[T]he lack of such notice should not amount to a fatal defect [in a case where] defendant has neither a meritorious defense nor another objection that he can assert'" ( Fleet Fin. v. Nielsen, 234 A.D.2d 728, 729-730, quoting 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 3215.37; see, CPLR 5015; Wechsler v. Kulukundis, 130 A.D.2d 892; Kirkman/3hree, Inc. v. Priority AMC Jeep, 94 A.D.2d 870). The defendant's affidavit, which contains only conclusory assertions, is insufficient to establish a meritorious defense ( see, Smith v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 344; Starr Block Co. v. Tedesco, 146 A.D.2d 692).
Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.