| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Todd |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01610 [125 AD3d 933] |
| February 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association,Respondent, v William G. Todd et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
William G. Todd, Bedford, N.Y., appellant pro se and for appellant Leigh-ElizabethTodd.
Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, New York, N.Y. (Michael B. Schultz and ScottW. Parker of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants William G. Todd andLeigh-Elizabeth Todd appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, WestchesterCounty (Giacomo, J.), entered November 19, 2013, which granted the plaintiff's motionfor an order of reference, and denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) todismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction,and (2) an order of reference of the same court entered November 19, 2013, which, interalia, referred the matter to a referee to ascertain and compute the amount due to theplaintiff.
Ordered that the order and the order of reference are affirmed, with one bill ofcosts.
"A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of properservice" (Scarano vScarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716 [2009]; see NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092,1093 [2012]). Where a defendant submits a sworn denial of receipt of process containingspecific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavit, the presumption ofproper service is rebutted and an evidentiary hearing is required (see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. vWestervelt, 105 AD3d 896, 897 [2013]; Gray v Giannikios, 90 AD3d 836 [2011]; Countrywide Home LoansServicing, LP v Albert, 78 AD3d 983, 984-985 [2010]; City of New York v Miller, 72AD3d 726, 727 [2010]). Here, the affidavits of service of the plaintiff's processserver constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (see Bank of N.Y. v Espejo, 92AD3d 707, 708 [2012]; USNatl. Bank Assn. v Melton, 90 AD3d 742, 743 [2011]), and the affidavitssubmitted by the defendant William G. Todd were insufficient to rebut the presumptionof proper service (seeGrinshpun v Borokhovich, 100 AD3d 551, 552 [2012]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal,Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.