Simonds v. Grobman
This text of 277 A.D.2d 369 (Simonds v. Grobman) 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.
Opinion
—In an action to recover dam[370]*370ages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Colar, 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.
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 AD2d 438; Simmons First Natl. Bank v Mandracchia, 248 AD2d 375; Remington Invs. v Seiden, 240 AD2d 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 AD2d 508; European Am. Bank v Abramoff, 201 AD2d 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. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
277 A.D.2d 369, 716 N.Y.S.2d 692, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simonds-v-grobman-nyappdiv-2000.