You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT...

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing about whether the complaint should be dismissed for failure to properly serve her:

“A process server's affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service” … . “Bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service” … . “However, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service and necessitates a hearing”… . “If an issue regarding service turns upon a question of credibility, a hearing should be held to render a determination on this issue” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining that branch of the motion of the defendant Delia Archibong (hereinafter the defendant) which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing. The defendant demonstrated her entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service through her affidavit, in which she denied that she knew anyone by the name of Tom Jonel, the person allegedly served at her house, that no one by that name or with that physical description lived in her house, and that she was the only person at home when the summons and complaint were allegedly served … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Archibong, 2018 NY Slip Op 00131, Second Dept 1-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE 21-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE CRIME AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY-TRIAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM NEGLECT PROCEEDING INVOLVING A DIFFERENT CHILD, NO SHOWING RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS.
THE DENIAL OF THE FOIL REQUEST DID NOT ADVISE PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HIS “BRAKES FAILED” WAS DEEMED SELF-SERVING AND INADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
MOTHER HAD FLED TO ARGENTINA WITH THE CHILD WHILE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING VISITATION ON THE GROUND SHE DID NOT HAVE STANDING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION, THE DEFENDANT BAR HAD TIMELY SUED ITS SECURITY COMPANY AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT; AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED, PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUE THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY UNDER A “RELATION BACK” THEORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO FILE... THE ABSENCE OF A PRICE FOR INTERNET SERVICE IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE...