Assocs. First Capital Corp. v. Wiggins, 75 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Assocs. First Capital Corp. v. Wiggins, 75 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bank of New York Mellon v. Scura (nyappdiv, 2013-01-16)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bank of New York Mellon v. Scura
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Bank FSB v Quattrochi, 99 AD3d 763 [2012]; Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 75 AD3d 614, 615 [2010]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bank of New York Mellon v. Scura
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Bank FSB v Quattrochi, 99 AD3d 763 [2012]; Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 75 AD3d 614, 615 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" Stones Funding, LLC v. Korin (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Bank v Holt , 71 AD3d 670 , 670 [2010]; see Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins , 75 AD3d 614 [2010]; City of New York v Miller , 72 AD3d 726 , 727 [2010]; Scarano v Scarano , 63 AD3d 716 , 716 [2009]).
discussed Cited "see" Tikvah Enterprises, LLC v. Neuman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
“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 ‘specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavits’ ” (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716 , quoting Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]; see Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 75 AD3d at 614-615 ; City of New York v Miller, 72 AD3d 726, 727 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" Engel v. Boymelgreen (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Bank v Holt, 71 AD3d 670, 670 [2010]; see Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 75 AD3d 614 [2010]; City of New York v Miller, 72 AD3d 726, 727 [2010]; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716 [2009]; Mortgage Elec.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Associates First Capital Corporation
v.
R. Jonathan Wiggins, David D. DeRosa, Nonparty
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 27, 2010.
75 A.D.3d 614
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated April 27, 2009, which, without a hearing, denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered March 13, 2008, setting aside the sale of the real property, and to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CELR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, inter alia, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. “A process server’s affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service” (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716 [2009]). “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 (see Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc., 117 AD2d 135,[*615] 139 [1986]), no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to ‘specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavits’ ” (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716, quoting Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]). Here, since the defendants’ affidavits amounted to no more than bare and conclusory denials of service which were insufficient to rebut the prima facie proof of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) and (2) created by the process server’s affidavit, no hearing was required (see City of New York v Miller, 72 AD3d 726 [2010]; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Schotter, 50 AD3d 983, 983 [2008]; 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 50 AD3d 845, 846 [2008]; Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Dillon, J.R, Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.