This decision affirms orders denying motions to vacate default and vacate the default judgment.  The default was based on substitute service of the complaint on a co-resident of a gated community.  There was sufficient evidence in the process server’s proofs of service to support the trial court’s conclusions that diligent efforts were made to serve the defendants personally before resort was made to substituted service and that defendant lived at the address where substituted service was made.  Even though the complaint arguably did not state a cause of action against Banerjee individually as opposed to his co-defendant corporation, that defect could be raised only on direct appeal from the judgment, not by way of a motion to set aside the default judgment or an appeal from denial of such a motion.  The complaint adequately apprised Banerjee of the nature of the case, so the judgment was not void–the only basis for attack by motion to set aside the judgment.