Opinion
2019–02308 Index No. 8362/10
12-01-2021
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, appellant, v. George FRANTZESKAKIS, respondent, et al., defendants.
Knuckles, Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, Elmsford, NY (Adam Wynn and Gregg L. Verrilli of counsel), for appellant. Warshaw Burnstein, LLP, New York, NY (Pankaj Malik of counsel), for respondent.
Knuckles, Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, Elmsford, NY (Adam Wynn and Gregg L. Verrilli of counsel), for appellant.
Warshaw Burnstein, LLP, New York, NY (Pankaj Malik of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), dated November 21, 2018. The order, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant George Frantzeskakis which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendant George Frantzeskakis which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.
"A process server's affidavit of service gives rise to a presumption of proper service" ( Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. O'King, 148 A.D.3d 776, 776, 51 N.Y.S.3d 523 ). "A sworn denial containing a detailed and specific contradiction of the allegations in the process server's affidavit will defeat the presumption of proper service" ( id. at 776–777, 51 N.Y.S.3d 523 ). However, "[b]are and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Archibong, 157 A.D.3d 662, 662–663, 66 N.Y.S.3d 625 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "A minor discrepancy between the appearance of the person allegedly served and the description of the person served contained in the affidavit of service is generally insufficient to raise an issue of fact warranting a hearing" ( PNC Bank, N.A. v. Bannister, 161 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 77 N.Y.S.3d 452 ). Further, "the discrepancies must be substantiated by something more than a claim by the parties allegedly served that the descriptions of their appearances were incorrect" ( US Bank N.A. v. Cherubin, 141 A.D.3d 514, 516, 36 N.Y.S.3d 154 ). Here, notwithstanding alleged physical discrepancies, the process server averred that the person who answered the door, and on whom he served process, gave her name as Marina Frantzeskakis, and acknowledged she was the wife of the defendant George Frantzeskakis (hereinafter the defendant).
The process server's affidavit of service constituted prima facie proof of proper service on the defendant via substituted service on his wife (see CPLR 308[2] ). The affidavits submitted by the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of due service. The discrepancies alleged by the defendant between his wife's appearance and the description of the person served contained in the process server's affidavit were either too minor or insufficiently substantiated to warrant a hearing (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Yurowitz, 181 A.D.3d 646, 648, 117 N.Y.S.3d 605 ; US Bank N.A. v. Cherubin, 141 A.D.3d at 516, 36 N.Y.S.3d 154 ).
Accordingly, a hearing to determine the validity of service of process was not warranted under the circumstances of this case, and the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction without a hearing (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Decesare, 154 A.D.3d 717, 718, 62 N.Y.S.3d 446 ).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.
AUSTIN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.