In Plaza 400 Owners Corp. v. Resnicoff, 168 Misc 2d 837, 841 [Civ Ct, NY County 1996, Stallman, J.] Judge Stallman addressed a situation in which the defendant, despite having received short service, appeared and opposed the motion: "Where, as here, defendant appeared on the merits and does not dispute either the legal sufficiency of the service method or its performance, jurisdiction is not an issue. The court has power to entertain the motion, but must afford the defendant adequate opportunity to prepare and serve a response before it decides the matter." What about the situation presented in the instant case, though, where the defendant has not appeared and opposed? In Plaza 400 Owners v. Resnicoff (168 Misc 2d 837, 840, n 1, supra), Judge Stallman criticized earlier nisi prius authority, which had described short service in a default situation as "jurisdictional," as employing "misleading usage. " Judge Stallman observed that the applicable statutory provisions "do not relate to jurisdiction. Rather, they circumscribe the defendant's available response time." (168 Misc 2d at 841-842.) "Accordingly, if service had been completed before the return date, but not sufficiently early to afford the full statutory response time, jurisdiction was already acquired before the beginning of the appearance/answer period." (168 Misc 2d at 842.)