Defendant’s Submissions Did Not Rebut the Presumption of Receipt of the Summons and Complaint Properly Sent by Ordinary Mail
The Second Department determined defendant’s claims he was out of the country when the summons and complaint were mailed and never received them were insufficient to overcome the presumption of receipt based upon proper mailing by ordinary mail:
In support of that branch of his cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in answering the complaint … . In support of his contention that he had a reasonable excuse, the defendant claimed that he was out of the country …, and when he returned to the United States there were no summons and complaint or notice of this action in the mail. The defendant’s submissions, however, failed to rebut the presumption of receipt based on proof of the proper mailing of the summons and complaint by ordinary mail … . Therefore, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default in answering the complaint … .
In support of that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317, the defendant was required to demonstrate that he did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 317…). The evidence demonstrating that copies of the summons and complaint were mailed to the defendant at the correct residential address created a presumption of proper mailing and of receipt, and the defendant’s mere denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut that presumption … . Williamson v Marlou Cab Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04636, 2nd Dept 6-3-15