Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Donald S. Kurtz, J.), entered on February 24, 2005. The order granted defendant Keith Graham's motion for renewal and/or reargument and, upon renewal and/or reargument, adhered to the prior order denying his motion to vacate the default judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover damages for breach of a retail installment agreement, defendant Keith Graham defaulted in answering and a default judgment was entered on April 17, 1991. It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action (Zherka v Zherka, 17 AD3d 668 [2005]). However, where a defendant asserts that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over him as a ground for vacatur, he will not be required to establish the aforementioned grounds for vacatur of the default (see Steele v Hempstead Pub Taxi, 305 AD2d 401 [2003]). In the case at bar, defendant merely alleged that he was not served. The affidavit of the process server constituted prima facie evidence of proper service and the foregoing conclusory claim of lack of service was insufficient to raise an issue of fact with regard thereto [*2](96 Pierrepont v Mauro, 304 AD2d 631 [2003]; Simmons First Natl. Bank v Mandracchia, 248 AD2d 375 [1998]). Accordingly, the court below properly denied defendant Graham's motion to vacate the default judgment.

Defendant Graham's contention that the lower court exhibited behavior which created the appearance of impropriety is raised for the first time on appeal, and is dehors the record. This court is limited to reviewing matters contained in the settled [*3]
record (see McSpedon v Revzim, 5 Misc 3d 129[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51283[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

We have reviewed defendant Graham's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Decision Date: January 05, 2006