NYCTL 2012-A Trust v. Colbert

2017 NY Slip Op 114, 146 A.D.3d 482, 45 N.Y.S.3d 408
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 10, 2017
Docket301863/13 2692 2691
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 114 (NYCTL 2012-A Trust v. Colbert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
NYCTL 2012-A Trust v. Colbert, 2017 NY Slip Op 114, 146 A.D.3d 482, 45 N.Y.S.3d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered July 7, 2015, granting plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the subject property in satisfaction of an underlying tax lien, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a traverse hearing and further *483 proceedings consistent with the determination rendered after such hearing.

The affidavits of plaintiffs’ process server describing defendant as the person who accepted service of the summons, complaint, and notice of pendency, constituted prima facie evidence of proper service (see Grinshpun v Borokhovich, 100 AD3d 551, 552 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Edwards, 95 AD3d 692 [1st Dept 2012]).

In opposition, however, defendant’s affidavit sufficiently rebutted the presumption of service established by the process server because he specifically denied receipt of service insofar as his medical condition rendered him unable to accept service at the times claimed by plaintiffs. Moreover, discrepancies between defendant’s stated appearance and the descriptions provided by the process server of the person he served also raised an issue of fact as to whether defendant was personally served (see NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz, 7 AD3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2004]; compare Reem Contr. v Altschul & Altschul, 117 AD3d 583, 584 [1st Dept 2014]; Grinshpun, 100 AD3d at 552). In light of these factual disputes, the court erred in granting the motion for a judgment of foreclosure without first resolving the threshold issue of personal service with a traverse hearing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Richter, Saxe, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Russo
2022 NY Slip Op 03475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. David
2019 NY Slip Op 3933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 114, 146 A.D.3d 482, 45 N.Y.S.3d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyctl-2012-a-trust-v-colbert-nyappdiv-2017.