Opinion
September 3, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.).
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The affidavit of service was insufficient, as a matter of law, to satisfy plaintiff's burden of establishing the exercise of due diligence in attempting to effect personal service upon the respondent before resorting to the use of the so-called "nail and mail" provisions under CPLR 308 (4) (Kaszovitz v Weiszman, 110 A.D.2d 117; Reed v Domenech, 90 A.D.2d 844). Absent proper service of a summons, a default judgment is a nullity and once it is shown that proper service was not effected the judgment must be unconditionally vacated. The existence or lack of a meritorious defense is irrelevant to the question of whether a judgment should be vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 5015 [a] [4]; Shaw v Shaw, 97 A.D.2d 403; Mayers v Cadman Towers, 89 A.D.2d 844; McMullen v Arnone, 79 A.D.2d 496). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.