By: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Edmead, JJ.18-078. 305 MK SECURE HOLDINGS, LLC, pet-lan-res, v. JIANG CHEN, res-ten-app, -and- REUBEN RUBINOVO, “JOHN DOE” AND “JANE DOE,” res-unt — Order (Hannah Cohen, J.), dated April 25, 2017, affirmed, with $10 costs.Tenant’s post-eviction motion to vacate the default final judgment for lack of jurisdiction was properly denied. Tenant failed to raise any genuine dispute that service of the notice of petition and petition were made in compliance with the “reasonable application” requirements of RPAPL §735(1). The affidavit of service indicates that the papers were affixed to tenant’s apartment door, after a first attempt at personal delivery during business hours and a second attempt during nonbusiness hours on two consecutive days, followed by the required mailings (see Eight Assoc. v. Hynes, 102 AD2d 746 [1984], affd 65 NY2d 739 [1985]). Since tenant never provided landlord with “written information” of an alternate residence address (see RPAPL §735[1][a]; 235 W. 22nd St., LLC v. Genshaft, 24 Misc 3d 145[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51822[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2009]), landlord was not required to make any additional mailings (cf. Horatio Arms, Inc. v. Celbert, 41 Misc 3d 11 [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying tenant’s motion for vacatur relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1). Tenant’s claim that he was out of the country for more than a year tending to an ill parent is unsupported (see Chang Hyun Kim v. Consolidated Edison, Inc., 39 AD3d 390 [2007]), and insufficient to excuse his seven-month (post-eviction) delay in first moving to vacate the judgment (see Arias v. First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 100 AD3d 940, 941 [2012]; Caba v. Rai, 63 AD3d 578, 582 [2009]). Tenant also failed to set forth a meritorious defense to the holdover petition.We have considered tenant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.May 23, 2018
16-496. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. WILLIE BUTLER, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Armando Montano, J.), rendered July 27, 2015, affirmed.Our review of the record indicates that defendant’s guilty plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently with the aid of counsel, and after the court sufficiently advised defendant of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty (see People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]; People v. Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Contrary to defendant’s present claim, his utterances, viewed in their entirety, did not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to require the court to conduct a further inquiry (see People v. Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]).In any event, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n 1; People v. Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.May 23, 2018
