Facey v. Heyward, 244 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Facey v. Heyward, 244 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Matos (nyappdiv, 2010-10-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Matos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Corp., 275 AD2d 453 [2000]; Matter of Rosa v Board of Examiners of City of N.Y., 143 AD2d 351 [1988]), especially where, as here, the plaintiff presented evidence at the hearing that the defendant received a summons and complaint in another action at the same address (see Facey v Heyward, 244 AD2d 452, 453 [1997]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brightly v. Florida North, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
LLC, 53 AD3d 479, 480 [2008]; Facey v Heyward, 244 AD2d 452, 452 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terlizzese v. Robinson's Custom Service, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The plaintiffs mere denial of receipt of the default judgment did not overcome the presumption of proper mailing, and failed to raise an issue of fact requiring a hearing (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122 [1999]; Engel v Lichterman, supra at 944-945 ; Kendall v Kelly, 283 AD2d 401 [2001]; Wieck v Halpern, 255 AD2d 438 [1998]; Facey v Heyward, 244 AD2d 452, 453 [1997]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." McGlasson Realty, Inc. v. Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Commn., 161 AD2d 715, 715-716 ; see also, Facey v Heyward, 244 AD2d 452 ; Matter of Panama Leasing Co. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 237 AD2d 444 ; cf., Nassau Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Christine Facey, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Martin Braithwaite, an Infant
v.
James Heyward
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 17, 1997.
244 A.D.2d 452
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11616
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

—In a negligence[*453] action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 4, 1996, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated December 15, 1995, entered upon his default in appearing, and which was in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $250,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court’s factual findings, based upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing, should not be disturbed, as that court had the opportunity to see and hear them and was in the best position to assess their truthfulness (see, Cautela Realty v McDonald, 239 AD2d 481; Laurenzano v Laurenzano, 222 AD2d 560, 561). The evidence at the hearing established that the defendant was validly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). Thus, the court properly denied the branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate his default on the ground that the court did not obtain jurisdiction over him (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [4]; Marks v Buongiovanni, 214 AD2d 653).

The hearing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate his default pursuant to CPLR 317, as the evidence indicates that the defendant received notice of the summons in time to defend the instant action. The plaintiffs submitted competent evidence that a copy of the summons and complaint was properly mailed to the defendant at his residence, and thus, it must be presumed that he received it (see, Engel v Lichterman, 95 AD2d 536, 538, affd 62 NY2d 943; Riverhead Sav. Bank v Garone, 183 AD2d 760, 762). His mere denial of receipt, without more, does not rebut the presumption (see, Matter of Rosa v Board of Examiners, 143 AD2d 351), especially where, as here, the plaintiffs presented evidence at the hearing that the defendant’s wife received and signed for another certified mailing at the same address (see, Riverhead Sav. Bank v Garone, supra; Leon v Murphy, 988 F2d 303, 309). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.