Hayden v. S. Wine & Spirits of Upstate N.Y., Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 March 2015
• Docket Number: 2013-08190
• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01783,126 A.D.3d 673,5 N.Y.S.3d 222
• Parties: Leonard HAYDEN, respondent, v. SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF UPSTATE NEW YORK, INC., appellant, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

126 A.D.3d 673

5 N.Y.S.3d 222

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01783

Leonard HAYDEN, respondent

v.SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF UPSTATE NEW YORK, INC., appellant, et al., defendants.

2013-08190

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

March 4, 2015.

Alan B. Brill, P.C., Suffern, N.Y. (Donna M. Brautigam of counsel), for appellant.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Southern Wine & Spirits of Upstate New York, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated June 27, 2013, which denied its motion, made jointly with the defendant Southern Wine & Spirits, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and the defendant Southern Wine & Spirits for lack of personal jurisdiction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 311(a)(1) provides that personal service on a corporation shall be made, inter alia, by delivering the summons “to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service” (CPLR 311[a] [1] ). A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service on a corporation pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1) (see Rosario v. NES Med. Servs. of N.Y., P.C., 105 A.D.3d 831, 832, 963 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; Indymac Fed. Bank FSB v. Quattrochi, 99 A.D.3d 763, 764, 952 N.Y.S.2d 239 ; C & H Import & Export, Inc. v. MNA Global, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 784, 784, 912 N.Y.S.2d 428 ). Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing, no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to detailed and specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavit (see Rosario v. NES Med. Servs. of N.Y., P.C.,

105 A.D.3d at 832, 963 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; Indymac Fed. Bank FSB v. Quattrochi, 99 A.D.3d at 764, 952 N.Y.S.2d 239 ; US Natl. Bank Assn. v. Melton, 90 A.D.3d 742, 743, 934 N.Y.S.2d 352 ).

Here, the process server's affidavit, which stated, inter alia, that personal service was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an “authorized agent,” and provided a description of that person, constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1) (see Rosario v. NES Med. Servs. of N.Y., P.C., 105 A.D.3d at 832, 963 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; Indymac Fed. Bank FSB v. Quattrochi, 99 A.D.3d at 764, 952 N.Y.S.2d 239 ; C & H Import & Export, Inc. v. MNA Global, Inc., 79 A.D.3d at 784, 912 N.Y.S.2d 428 ; McIntyre v. Emanuel Church of God In Christ, Inc., 37 A.D.3d 562, 830 N.Y.S.2d 261 ). The movants failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing....