| Board of Mgrs. of Foundry at Washington Park Condominium vFoundry Dev. Co., Inc. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07705 [111 AD3d 776] |
| November 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Board of Managers of Foundry at Washington ParkCondominium, as Agent for All Unit Owners, Respondent, v FoundryDevelopment Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, and Nirva Sanchez et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Blustein, Shapiro, Rich & Barone, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Gardiner S. Barone ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendantNirva Sanchez appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County(McGuirk, J.), dated November 25, 2011, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personaljurisdiction, and (2) second, third, and fourth orders of the same court, also datedNovember 25, 2011, the defendant Gerardo Sanchez appeals from all four orders datedNovember 25, 2011, and the defendant Joseph Suarez appeals from the fourth orderdated November 25, 2011.
Ordered that the appeals by the defendant Nirva Sanchez from the second, third, andfourth orders dated November 25, 2011, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements,for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (see 22NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeals by the defendants Gerardo Sanchez and Joseph Suarez aredismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordancewith the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,
Ordered that the first order dated November 25, 2011, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff, payable by the appellantNirva Sanchez.
The defendant Nirva Sanchez moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the[*2]complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack ofpersonal jurisdiction. However, her conclusory and unsubstantiated denial of servicelacked the factual specificity and detail required to rebut the prima facie proof of properservice set forth in the process server's affidavit of service, which was filed before shemade her motion (see ACTProps., LLC v Garcia, 102 AD3d 712, 713 [2013]; Indymac Fed. Bank FSB vQuattrochi, 99 AD3d 763 [2012]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hussain, 78 AD3d 989[2010]; Countrywide HomeLoans Servicing, LP v Albert, 78 AD3d 983, 984 [2010]). Moreover, theadditional evidence and arguments she submitted in support of the motion to dismisswere improperly submitted for the first time in her reply papers (see Sawyers v Troisi, 95 AD3d1293, 1294 [2012]; Matterof Allstate Ins. Co. v Dawkins, 52 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Mu Ying Zhu v Zhi Rong Lin,1 AD3d 416, 417 [2003]; Klimis v Lopez, 290 AD2d 538 [2002]; Ritt vLenox Hill Hosp., 182 AD2d 560, 562 [1992]). The Supreme Court thereforeproperly denied her motion. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ.,concur.