Summary
finding that the affidavit of a non-party was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact on the issue of whether service was proper
Summary of this case from Westchase Residential Assets II, LLC v. GuptaOpinion
Submitted October 25, 2000.
November 21, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated November 22, 1999, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(8) and granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to strike the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.
Curtis, Vasile, Devine McElhenny, Merrick, N.Y. (Robert M. Smith of counsel), for appellants.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground that they had not been properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2). The process server's affidavits constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) (see, Wieck v. Halpern, 255 A.D.2d 438; Simmons First Natl. Bank v. Mandracchia, 248 A.D.2d 375; Remington Invs. v. Seiden, 240 A.D.2d 647). The defendants failed to submit a sworn denial of service. Moreover, they did not swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits (see, Walkes v. Benoit, 257 A.D.2d 508; European Am. Bank v. Abramoff, 201 A.D.2d 611). The affidavit of nonparty Frank Grobman was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, and the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to strike the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction without a hearing.