From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Remington Investments Inc. v. Seiden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 1997
240 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Summary

holding that the issue of service under C.P.L.R. section 308 is properly determined "without first conducting a hearing" where the movant has failed "to specifically refute the contents of the affidavits of service or substantiate . . . conclusory allegations"

Summary of this case from Desouza v. Plusfunds Group, Inc.

Opinion

June 23, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the appellants argued, inter alia, that they had not been served with the summons and complaint. The trial court rejected this argument on the ground that the appellants' allegations were vague and conclusory and insufficient to raise an issue of fact. The appellants' sole contention on appeal is that the court erred in deciding this jurisdictional issue without holding a hearing. We disagree.

The affidavits of the process server constitute prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), and the appellants' conclusory denials of service are insufficient to raise any issue of fact ( see, Sando Realty Corp. v. Aris, 209 A.D.2d 682; Genway Corp. v. Elgut, 177 A.D.2d 467). Since the appellants failed to specifically refute the contents of the affidavits of service or substantiate their own conclusory allegations, the trial court properly determined the issue of service without first conducting a hearing ( see, Sando Realty Corp. v. Aris, supra; Genway Corp. v. Elgut, supra).

Miller, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Remington Investments Inc. v. Seiden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 1997
240 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

holding that the issue of service under C.P.L.R. section 308 is properly determined "without first conducting a hearing" where the movant has failed "to specifically refute the contents of the affidavits of service or substantiate . . . conclusory allegations"

Summary of this case from Desouza v. Plusfunds Group, Inc.
Case details for

Remington Investments Inc. v. Seiden

Case Details

Full title:REMINGTON INVESTMENTS INC., v. SAUL SEIDEN et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 23, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 696

Citing Cases

Desouza v. Plusfunds Group, Inc.

See N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 308(2) (McKinney 2006) (setting forth the methods for personal service upon a natural…

Zara Realty Holding Corp. v. E&J Deli & Grocery, Inc.

Defendant Shewmangal, significantly, fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process…