Attorney fee disputes often blossom into legal malpractice cases, although Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. v Gritsipis ; 2011 NY Slip Op 05483 ;  Appellate Division, Second Department is not one of these. Nevertheless, it is one of the longest attorney fee disputes in memory. The case itself started in 1993 as the AD tells us:
 

"An affidavit of service reflects service upon the defendant on September 7, 1993, by delivery of a copy of the summons with notice to a person of suitable age and discretion named Evelyn Monterosa at the defendant’s place of business.

A clerk’s judgment was thereafter executed on February 7, 1994, for the requested sum of $66,875.41, plus statutory costs and disbursements in the sum of $370, for a total judgment in the sum of $67,245.41 (hereinafter the 1994 judgment).

The plaintiff commenced a second action against the defendant on March 17, 2009, by the filing of a summons and complaint in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 09-006753 (hereinafter the 2009 complaint). The plaintiff alleged that no portion of the 1994 judgment had been satisfied, that more than 10 years had passed since the judgment was docketed, and that the judgment should be renewed pursuant to CPLR 5014(1). The defendant answered the 2009 complaint, asserted affirmative defenses, and separately moved under the index number of the 1993 action, inter alia, to vacate the 1994 judgment.
 

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff properly obtained jurisdiction over him under CPLR 308(2). The affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (see Matter of Perskin v Bassaragh, 73 AD3d 1073; Prospect Park Mgt., LLC v Beatty, 73 AD3d 885; Pezolano v Incorporated City of Glen Cove, 71 AD3d 970, 971; Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC v Reisman, 55 AD3d 524, 525; Jefferson v Netusil, 44 AD3d 621). The defendant’s failure to recall the person of suitable age and discretion who was served, without specific facts of the identity of his employees, employment records, payroll records, or affidavits from others, fails to rebut the process server’s affidavit (see Interlink Metals & Chems. v Kazdan, 222 AD2d 55, 56; see also Pezolano v Incorporated City of Glen Cove, 71 AD3d at 971; Sturino v Nino Tripicchio & Son Landscaping, 65 AD3d 1327; Silverman v Deutsch, 283 AD2d 478, 478-479). Thus, there is an insufficient basis to vacate the 1994 judgment for lack of jurisdiction under CPLR 5015(a)(4).

Clerks’ judgments may nevertheless be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) where the [*3]defendant demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672, 672-673; see generally Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Gray v B. R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649, 650; Yao Ping Tang v Grand Estate, LLC, 77 AD3d 822; Zanani v Schvimmer, 75 AD3d 546, 547; Li Gang Ma v Hong Guang Hu, 54 AD3d 312, 313). The defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default since the only excuse he proffered was that he was not served with process. Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant also failed to establish a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Contrary to the defendant’s contention that the legal services were rendered solely to his corporation, the documentary evidence, including the invoices for legal fees incurred and the pleadings in the earlier landlord-tenant litigations, establish that the defendant was an individually named party in those actions who received individualized legal services. Other issues that the defendant raises as to the invoices themselves speak to the specific amount of damages, and not to liability or to his default in the 1993 action.

III. The Clerk’s Judgment Under CPLR 3215(a) The defendant’s argument that the clerk of the court lacked authority to enter a judgment is raised for the first time on appeal. However, where, as here, an argument presents an issue of law appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture, it may be considered by an appellate court (see Parry v Murphy, 79 AD3d 713; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d at 673; Chrostowski v Chow, 37 AD3d 638, 639; Beepat v James, 303 AD2d 345, 346; Hanna v Ford Motor Co., 252 AD2d 478). The nature of this appeal warrants the exercise of our discretion in reaching on its merits the issue of the propriety of the clerk’s judgment. "