You are here: / / SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVIT FROM DEFENDANT DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF...
,

SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVIT FROM DEFENDANT DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant did not rebut the presumption of valid service of process:

… [P]laintiff submitted, in addition to evidence establishing the default of defendant and “proof of the facts constituting the claim” (CPLR 3215 [f] … ), the affidavit of a process server, who averred that he served defendant by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the office of the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 (b) (1), and an affidavit of additional mailing establishing that a copy of the summons and complaint was also sent to defendant’s mailing address pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g) (4). In opposition, defendant asserted that it was entitled under CPLR 317 to be relieved from its default in pleading, and defendant submitted an affidavit in which its president averred, insofar as relevant to the issue of service, that defendant had not received the summons and complaint prior to receipt of plaintiff’s initial notice of motion for a default judgment.

… [I]n order to be relieved of a default in pleading under CPLR 317, defendant was required to show, among other things, that it did not receive actual notice of the process in time to defend the action … . It is well settled that a “process server’s affidavit constitute[s] prima facie evidence of proper service on the Secretary of State” … , and thus defendant was required to rebut the presumption of proper service … . Here, the “self-serving affidavit [of defendant’s president], which merely denied receipt, is insufficient to rebut [that] presumption” … . Lechase Constr. Servs., LLC v JM Bus. Assoc. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01977, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

You might also like
“Speaking Authorizations” Re Non-Party Healthcare Providers in Lead-Paint Injury Case Okay/But Not Okay for Non-Party Educators
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SNOW PLOW WAS “ENGAGED IN HIGHWAY WORK” AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE APPLIED; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Read Defendant His Miranda Rights, After the Defendant Interrupted the Reading of the Rights by Telling the Officer He Knew His Rights, Required Suppression of the Statements
IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, ALTHOUGH THE STATE DEMONSTRATED THE INTERSECTION WAS SAFE WHEN CONSTRUCTED, CLAIMANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INCREASED TRAFFIC RENDERED THE INTERSECTION UNSAFE AND WHETHER THE STATE WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT DURING A CONTROLLED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE MOTHER OF THE ALLEGED CHILD VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT IN A CLOSED ROOM AT THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE, WHERE DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED AND CONFRONTED WITH HIS INCULPATORY STATEMENTS, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED, HE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF DIRECTING THE CODEFENDANT TO KILL; THE CODEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MURDER; THE VERDICTS WERE REPUGNANT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE REPUGNANT VERDICTS (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH ALL JUSTICES AGREED THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ILLUSORY, THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THE NAMES OF WITNESSES CAPTURED ON A VIDEO (FOURTH DEPT).
Proof of Normal Notification Procedure Sufficient to Demonstrate Defendant Was Notified of Lead-Paint-Injury Exclusion in Policy

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

BECAUSE FATHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING FATHER WAS... JAIL IS NOT A ‘PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYS...