You are here: / / THE APPELLANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS SERVED WITH...
,

THE APPELLANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ENTITLING HER TO A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant had raised a question of fact about whether she was served with the summons and complaint requiring a hearing:

Here, the process server’s affidavit of service, in which he averred that he personally served the appellant, constituted prima facie evidence of valid service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) … . However, the Supreme Court erred in determining this branch of the motion without first conducting a hearing. The appellant demonstrated her entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service by submitting, among other evidence, her sworn denial, setting forth significant discrepancies between the description of the person allegedly served and the appellant’s physical appearance … . Under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether service was properly effected pursuant to the personal delivery provisions of CPLR 308(1) … . Matter of Rockman v Nassau County Sheriff’s Dept., 2024 NY Slip Op 00770, Second Det 2-14-24

Practice Point: Here, although plaintiff demonstrated proper service of process, the appellant raised a question of fact about whether she in fact was personally served by noting the process server’s description of the person served did not match her appearance.

 

You might also like
ALLOWING UBER DRIVERS TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE APPLICATION IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OF TAXI CAB AND LIMOUSINE DRIVERS (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Inform Defendant of the Specific Period of Postrelease Supervision Applicable to the Offense Defendant Pled To Required Vacation of Sentence
FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVALID (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE CAN PROPERLY AWARD COUNSEL FEES TO PETITIONER BASED UPON RESPONDENT’S VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE (SECOND DEPT).
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST; TROOPER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE PETITIONER OPERATED HIS MOTORCYCLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION OR EXCAVATION, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) NOT APPLICABLE.
THE BANK WHICH COMMENCED THE 2006 FORECLOSURE HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AND DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING IN 2006; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY’S “CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION” DID NOT INCLUDE SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT THE ATTORNEY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THE TRANSLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RESPONDENT MATERNAL UNCLE IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DID NOT EFFECTIVELY WAIVE... THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE WAS UNDER MEDICATION AT THE HOSPITAL...