Tribeca Lending Corp. v Bartlett, 2014 NY Slip Op 07429 (1st Dept. 2014)
The realm of procedural snafus that can trigger the existences of jurisdiction defects, sufficient to warrant 5015(a)(4) treatment are quite narrow. This case expresses this sentiment quite nicely.
“The alleged defects raised by defendant do not involve jurisdictional defects within the meaning of CPLR 5015(a)(4), and thus do not provide a basis for vacatur under that provision (Wells Fargo, N.A. v Levin, 101 AD3d 1519, 1521 [3d Dept 2012], lv dismissed 21 NY3d 887 [2013] [lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect]; see Matapos Tech. Ltd. v Compania Andina de Comercio Ltda, 68 AD3d 672, 673 [1st Dept 2009] [lack of a certificate of conformity is “not a fatal defect”]; see also Varon v Ciervo, 170 AD2d 446, 447 [2d Dept 1991] [untimely filing of proof of service is not a basis to vacate a notice of pendency]).”
The usual reminder is that it is quite difficult to get out of a judgment is resort is not made to 5015(a)(1)
