We agree with the IAS court that jurisdiction was obtained over defendant-appellant, service of process having been made in accordance with the parties' lease by certified mail at the address designated in the lease. It is well settled that a person who has agreed to receive a particular mode of notification of legal proceedings should be bound by a judgment in which that particular mode of notification has been followed (Pennoyer v Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 735; Gilbert v. Burnstine, 255 N.Y. 348, 355-356). Since any purported oral modification would be in contravention of the lease (General Obligations Law § 15-301), and since defendant offered neither a meritorious defense nor a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to vacate his default (see, DFI Communications v. Golden Penn Theatre Ticket Serv., 87 A.D.2d 778), it was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS court to refuse defendant relief from the default (CPLR 5015; M.D. Son Contr. v. American Props., 179 A.D.2d 519).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.