Opinion
February 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The court properly ruled that service of process was proper where the process server submitted an affidavit of service, as well as an additional affidavit, attesting to his service of process upon the decedent's cotenant, 30-year old Anna Salvator, at the decedent's home on July 19, 1989, and to mailing another copy to the same residence address five days later (see, CPLR 308). The decedent's brother, who did not live with the decedent, submitted an affidavit claiming that two copies of the summons and notice of motion were slipped under the door of the decedent's home while the decedent was out of town, but that neither had arrived by mail. However, service by mail is complete, regardless of delivery, where the mailing itself is proper (see, 14 Second Ave. Realty Corp. v. Szalay, 16 A.D.2d 919). The bald denial of receipt of process served by mail is insufficient to rebut the inference of proper mailing which may be drawn from a duly executed affidavit of service (see, Public Adm'r of County of N.Y. v. Markowitz, 163 A.D.2d 100; Colon v Beekman Downtown Hosp., 111 A.D.2d 841; De Forte v. Doctors Hosp., 66 A.D.2d 792). Furthermore, no hearing was required, because there was no "sworn denial" by the decedent of service, nor did the decedent swear to specific facts in support of any denial of proper service (see, e.g., Ninth Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. v. Yelder, 107 A.D.2d 799; Green Point Sav. Bank v. Taylor, 92 A.D.2d 910; Howard v. Spitalnik, 68 A.D.2d 803; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Rick Mar Constr. Corp., 138 Misc.2d 316).
Summary judgment was properly granted where, as here, the plaintiff established the decedent's liability on the note, which on its face was payable on demand. The decedent failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise any genuine issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 560; Columbus Trust Co. v. Campolo, 110 A.D.2d 616, affd 66 N.Y.2d 701). There is no writing evidencing any modification of the parties' agreement, and an alleged oral agreement varying an unconditional obligation of a note will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Manufacturers Trust Co. v Palmer, 13 A.D.2d 772; see also, Franklin Natl. Bank v. Wall St. Commercial Corp., 40 Misc.2d 1003, affd 21 A.D.2d 878).
Finally, discovery is not warranted where, as here, no genuine defense has been articulated, but only "vague allegations of wrongdoing" (see, Citibank v. Furlong, 81 A.D.2d 803, 804; Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 636). Balletta, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.