McCraley v. Shvartsman

174 A.D.3d 795

102 N.Y.S.3d 883 (Mem)

Christopher MCCRALEY, et al., Respondents,

v.Boris SHVARTSMAN, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

2017–12822

Index No. 500242/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—March 25, 2019

July 24, 2019

Law Office of Natalia Vassilieva, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

Kupillas, Unger & Benjamin, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey Benjamin of counsel), for respondents.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Christie, 83 A.D.3d 824, 921 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; US Consults v. APG, Inc. , 82 A.D.3d 753, 917 N.Y.S.2d 911 ; Washington Mut. Bank v. Holt, 71 A.D.3d 670, 897 N.Y.S.2d 148 ; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Schotter, 50 A.D.3d 983, 857 N.Y.S.2d 592 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McGloster, 48 A.D.3d 457, 849 N.Y.S.2d 784 ). "[B]are and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Christie, 83 A.D.3d 824, 825, 921 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; see U.S. Consults v. APG, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 753, 917 N.Y.S.2d 911 ; Sturino v. Nino Tripicchio & Son Landscaping, 65 A.D.3d 1327, 885 N.Y.S.2d 625 ; Simmons First Natl. Bank v. Mandracchia, 248 A.D.2d 375, 669 N.Y.S.2d 646 ; Remington Invs. v. Seiden, 240 A.D.2d 647, 658 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; Sando Realty Corp. v. Aris, 209 A.D.2d 682, 619 N.Y.S.2d 140 ).

Here, the defendant Boris Shvartsman's mere denial that he resided at the address listed in the affidavit of service, without indicating where he allegedly did reside, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the duly executed affidavit of service (see Hyman v. 400 W. 152nd St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. , 159 A.D.3d 606, 73 N.Y.S.3d 165 ; Gourvitch v. 92nd & 3rd Rest Corp. , 146 A.D.3d 431, 44 N.Y.S.3d 403 ).

Shvartsman's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of Shvartsman's motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint.

CHAMBERS, J.P., LASALLE, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.