You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION THAT SHE DOES NOT LIVE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE...
, ,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION THAT SHE DOES NOT LIVE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE HER BROTHER WAS SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION NECESSITATED A TRAVERSE HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, found that a traverse hearing should have been held to determine whether defendant was properly served with the summons, complaint and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1303 notice:

In this foreclosure matter commenced in 2009, plaintiff’s affidavit of service indicated that service of the summons, complaint and RPAPL 1303 notice was effectuated upon defendant Nicola McCallum pursuant to CPLR 308(2) by serving an individual, who allegedly identified himself as her brother, at her “dwelling place,” and mailing the same documents to that address.

In response, defendant averred that she was never served with the summons and complaint, that she does not reside at the address where service was made, and that her primary residence has always been at the property that is the subject of this foreclosure action.

“While a proper affidavit of a process server attesting to personal delivery upon a defendant constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, a sworn non-conclusory denial of service by a defendant is sufficient to dispute the veracity or content of the affidavit, requiring a traverse hearing”… . The competing averments concerning plaintiff’s residence at the time of service raise a factual issue concerning whether the service address was her “dwelling place or usual place of abode” at the time of service (CPLR 308[2]) warranting a traverse hearing concerning whether defendant was properly served with the summons, complaint and RPAPL 1303 notice … . Nationstar Mtge. LLC v McCallum, 2018 NY Slip Op 08755, First Dept 12-20-18

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT OSHA REQUIRES PROTECTION ONLY FOR FALLS MORE THAN SIX FEET WAS IRRELEVANT; PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL FROM AN ELEVATED PLANK, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE DRIVER BEING VISIBLY NERVOUS, COUPLED WITH THE VEHICLE HAVING OUT-OF-STATE PLATES AND BEING IN A HIGH CRIME AREA, DID NOT PROVIDE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY; THEREFORE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASKING WHETHER THERE WERE ANY WEAPONS IN THE CAR, A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE VISITATION ISSUES TO A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL; THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR MODIFYING VISITATION ONCE FATHER HAS GAINED INSIGHT INTO THE CHILD’S NEEDS WAS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A WHEEL ON THE CONTAINER HE WAS PUSHING GOT STUCK IN A GAP IN THE FLOOR AFTER THE PLYWOOD COVERING THE GAP BROKE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6), LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ELECTRIC BICYCLE WAS SOLD BY A THIRD-PARTY THROUGH AMAZON AND WAS ASSEMBLED BY AN APPROVED AMAZON PROVIDER, THERE IS NO THEORY UNDER WHICH AMAZON CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR AN INJURY CAUSED BY IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF THE BICYCLE (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS CPLR ARTICLE 4 PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE WERE... IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY MOTHER, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE...