DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Bloom was entitled to a hearing on whether she was served with the summons and complaint:
Here, the affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server indicated that the process server served Bloom at an address on Avenue W in Brooklyn (hereinafter the Avenue W address) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint upon a cotenant, who was a person of suitable age and discretion, on May 4, 2019, and mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to Bloom at the Avenue W address on May 6, 2019. However, Bloom’s submission of a sworn statement in which she denied that she resided at the Avenue W address, and a copy of her driver license, which listed a different address as her residence at the time that service upon her was allegedly effectuated, contained specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit … . Therefore, the presumption of proper service upon Bloom was rebutted and the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether Bloom was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) … . Garrick v Charles, 2023 NY Slip Op 06353, Second Dept 12-13-23
Practice Point: Here defendant presented specific facts sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper services of process. A hearing should have been ordered.