Norwest Bank Minnesota, N. A. v. Galasso, 275 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N. A. v. Galasso, 275 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 309 W. 109th St. Corp. v. Davidson (nyappterm, 2025-12-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 309 W. 109th St. Corp. v. Davidson (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
However, defendant's claim that the summons and complaint were not affixed to his door, but left near the building's intercom sufficiently refuted the process server's affidavit and raised an issue of fact requiring a traverse hearing ( see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Gaines, 104 AD3d 885, 886-887 [2013]; Norwest Bank Minnesota v Galasso , 275 AD2d 400, 400-401 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N. A.
v.
Elizabeth W. L. Galasso, and John Doe
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 21, 2000.
275 A.D.2d 400
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8797
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Philip Galasso, s/h/a as John Doe, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered August 12, 1999, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the purpose of holding a hearing on the issue of whether personal jurisdiction was obtained over the appellant and thereafter for a new determination of his motion.

The appellant’s sworn statement that no summons and com[*401] plaint appeared on his door on May 14, 1999, sufficiently refuted the process server’s affidavit stating that the service was properly accomplished pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). Accordingly, a hearing should have been held (see, Hopkins v Tinghino, 248 AD2d 794).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Sullivan and H. Miller, JJ., concur.