In this action to recover the balance due under a promissory note, the defendant moves to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(2) and (8) on the grounds that: 1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction because the defendant is a non-domiciliary who lacks the requisite contacts with the State of New York; and 2) the Court lacks personal and subject matter jurisdiction because the defendant was not properly served with the complaint. The plaintiff has opposed the motion.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that the defendant is domiciled at 30 Cottage Avenue, Apt. 3B in Mount Vernon, New York and as such, the Court does have jurisdiction over the defendant.

Defendant contends that she is not a resident of the State of New York, but rather, a resident of the State of New Jersey and therefore, that she is not subject to the Court's jurisdiction. In support of her motion, the defendant provides only an unauthenticated photocopy of a State of New Jersey driver's license listing her name as Ora Y Wyllie, and her address as 880 Warren Parkway Teaneck, New Jersey, which is [*2]attached as Exhibit "B" to her moving papers. The Court does not find the production of an unauthenticated copy of a New Jersey driver's license bearing defendant's name, without more, to be dispositive of the matter of jurisdiction at this time.

Generally, the party attempting to assert personal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. Spectra Prods. v. Indian Riv. Citrus Specialties, 144 A.D.2d 832 (1988) . "Such burden, however, does not entail making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction; rather, plaintiff need only demonstrate that it made a "sufficient start" to warrant further discovery (see Peterson v. Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467, 354 N.Y.S.2d 905, 310 N.E.2d 513)" Bunkoff Gen. Contractors Inc. v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 296 A.D.2d 699 (2002). In the case at bar the plaintiff has met its initial burden of showing the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In opposition to the defendant's motion the plaintiff has produced a Lexis Nexis Accurint Search indicating the defendant has used the 30 Cottage Avenue, Apt. 3B, Mt. Vernon, New York 10550 address regularly including as recently as in the past two years. In addition, the plaintiff attached a copy of a response from a postmaster of the United States Post Office which indicates that the 30 Cottage Avenue, Apt. 3B, Mt. Vernon, New York 10550 address is a proper address for Ora Carter a/k/a Ora Wyllie. Finally, plaintiff also provides defendant's written response to a pre-litigation correspondence from plaintiff's counsel on which defendant listed her address as 30 Cottage Avenue, Apt. 3B, Mt. Vernon, New York 10550 in support of its contention that defendant is a resident of the State of New York. The written correspondence from defendant is attached as Exhibit "B" to plaintiff's opposition papers. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the plaintiff has satisfied its burden of making a sufficient showing that the Court has jurisdiction over the defendant to merit further discovery.

Second, the defendant contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction because she was not properly served since she does not reside in Mount Vernon, New York. The Court notes that this issue was already decided after a Traverse hearing held on May 26, 2011 at which time the Court held that service was proper. Such further frivolous litigation tactics will not be tolerated.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the instant matter is denied at this time.

The Court considered the following papers on this motion:

Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated June 10, 2011, Exhibit A; Affirmation in Opposition, dated July 6, 2011, Exhibits A-E.

Dated:October 11, 2011

Mount Vernon, New York

_________________________________

HON. ADAM SEIDEN

Associate City Judge of Mount Vernon