You are here: / / HERE MOTHER’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH...
,

HERE MOTHER’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BUT RATHER FOUND THE PAPERS ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR WAS CONCLUSORY AND INSUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE NO HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD AND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conclusory affidavit by defendants’ mother, alleging she was not served with the summons and complaint but rather found the papers on the ground in front of her front door, was not sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit demonstrating proper service upon a person identified as “aunt:”

… [T]he process server’s affidavits constituted prima facie evidence that the defendants were properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the defendants’ mother’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the process server’s affidavits because it was conclusory and not substantiated by specific facts … . The defendants’ mother’s conclusory averment that she did not receive service was insufficient to rebut the statement in the process server’s affidavits that an “AUNT” had accepted service. Furthermore, the defendants’ mother did not assert that there was no one else present at the premises who could have accepted service.

Therefore, because the defendants’ mother’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service, a hearing was not warranted … . … Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint … . Harvey v Usukumah, 2025 NY Slip Op 03050, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Here defendants’ mother’s affidavit claiming she was not served with the summons and complaint but rather found the papers on the ground outside the front door was deemed insufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit. Therefore no hearing about the propriety of service should have been held and the motion to dismiss the complaint should have been denied.​

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS STOPPED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS REAR-ENDED BY DEFENDANT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE BEEN STOPPED ON AN ENTRANCE RAMP; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PROPERLY SURVIVED DISMSSAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) TOOK AND ADVOCATED POSITIONS WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN; NEW CUSTODY HEARING ORDERED WITH A NEW AFC (SECOND DEPT).
Although the Doctor Was Employed by the Hospital, His Employment Did Not Encompass His Medical Practice—Therefore the Hospital Was Not Liable for the Doctor’s Medical Malpractice Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior/$6.8 Million Verdict Against the Doctors Based Upon a Delay in Diagnosing Cancer Should Not Have Been Set Aside
False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, and 1983 Actions Allowed to Proceed
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, PETITION ALLEGING UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING (1) THE VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE STOPPED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND (2) THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A ‘BORROWER’ AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THE BANK HAD ARGUED SHE WAS NOT A BORROWER BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MEET THE COURT’S FILING DEADLINE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (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

IF DEFENDANT DRIVER, COCUZZO, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT RANDALL AT THE TIME... ALTHOUGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT AND THE PETITIONER’S...