You are here: / / THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PERSON SERVED...
,

THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PERSON SERVED WAS AN AGENT OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; CLERK’S JUDGMENT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and vacating the clerk’s (default) judgment for over $420,000, determined the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate the person served with the summons and complaint was an agent of defendant corporation:

The plaintiff failed to establish that personal jurisdiction had been acquired over the defendant through proper service of process. Although a process server’s affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service … , here, the affidavit of service contained no indication that Lewis was an agent of the defendant authorized to accept service on the defendant’s behalf (see CPLR 311[1][a] …). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the clerk’s judgment. Bold Broadcasting, LLC v Wawaloam Reservation, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05196, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: Here the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate the person served with the summons and complaint had the authority to accept service for defendant corporation. The default judgment was vacated.​

 

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THIS DIVORCE ACTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET LOADING DOCK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-322.1 (1) APPLIES ONLY TO NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTEGRITY OF A BUILDING, NOT TO CLEANING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).
Purchaser of Mortgage Was Not a “Bona Fide Encumbrancer”—Another Previously Filed Mortgage Was the Operative Mortgage
Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action Under Municipal Law 205-e Allowed
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED RUNNING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS FIRST BROUGHT, THE SUBSEQUENT LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT, ENTERED WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STILL PENDING, STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING ANEW (SECOND DEPT).
Out-of-Pocket Expenses Must Be Alleged in Claim Based on Alleged Failure to Detect Child’s Medical Condition In Utero
Two-Justice Dissent Argued Termination of Father’s Parental Rights Was Not In the Best Interests of the Child

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

THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE 911 DISPATCHER AND THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS... FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT...