traverse hearing in New York

2026"While a proper affidavit of a process server attesting to personal delivery . . . constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, a sworn nonconclusory denial of service by a defendant is sufficient to dispute the veracity or content of the affidavit, requiring a traverse hearing" ( NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of NY v Rabinowitz , 7 AD3d 459, 460 [2004]; see also Bank of Am., N.A. v Diaz , 160 AD3d 457 , 458-459 [2018]).

2026"While a proper affidavit of a process server attesting to personal delivery . . . constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, a sworn nonconclusory denial of service by a defendant is sufficient to dispute the veracity or content of the affidavit, requiring a traverse hearing" ( NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of NY v Rabinowitz , 7 AD3d 459, 460 [2004]; see also Bank of Am., N.A. v Diaz , 160 AD3d 457, 458-459 [2018]).

2020Defendant's conclusory assertions that he "was not served a summons and complaint" and "did not receive the court papers" were not sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service and to warrant a traverse hearing ( see Grinshpun v Borokhovich , 100 AD3d 551 , 552 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]; Matter of de Sanchez , 57 AD3d 452, 454 [2008]).

2012The portion of defendant’s affidavit that purported to dispute that personal service had been made upon a person of suitable age and discretion at defendant’s actual place of business was conclusory and not specific enough to warrant a traverse hearing (see de Sanchez, 57 AD3d at 454).

2023A traverse hearing would further determine whether there was collusion between Ameritek and Zimmerman to evade service of process, which was seemingly calculated to lead plaintiff to believe that Zimmerman continued to be Ameritek's agent at the time of service ( see Finkelstein Newman Ferrara LLP v Manning , 67 AD3d 538, 538-39 [1st Dept 2009]; NYCTL 1998—1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz , 7 AD3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2004]).

2023A traverse hearing would further determine whether there was collusion between Ameritek and Zimmerman to evade service of process, which was seemingly calculated to lead plaintiff to believe that Zimmerman continued to be Ameritek's agent at the time of service ( see Finkelstein Newman Ferrara LLP v Manning , 67 AD3d 538, 538-39 [1st Dept 2009]; NYCTL 1998—1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz , 7 AD3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2004]).

2025Wolk, P.C. , 121 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2014]).

2025Wolk, P.C. , 121 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2014]).

2026Defendant's conclusory assertions that she "never received the summons and complaint" or that she "could not recall" receiving any other documents related to this matter were insufficient to warrant a traverse hearing ( see Grinshpun v Borokhovich , 100 AD3d 551, 552 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]).

2026Defendant's conclusory assertions that she "never received the summons and complaint" or that she "could not recall" receiving any other documents related to this matter were insufficient to warrant a traverse hearing ( see Grinshpun v Borokhovich , 100 AD3d 551 , 552 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]).

2024Trust Co. v Quinones , 114 AD3d 719 , 719 [2014]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Arias , 85 AD3d 1014 , 1015 [2011]; Daimler Trust v Ferro , 58 Misc 3d 152[A] , 2018 NY Slip Op 50116[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

2023Trust Co. v Quinones , 114 AD3d 719, 719 [2014]; Nassau Educators Fed.

2009In any event, the conclusory assertion of the father that he was not notified of the neglect proceeding was insufficient to raise an issue of fact requiring a traverse hearing with respect to service of the neglect petition (see Shaune TT., 251 AD2d 758 [1998]).

2008Nor was a traverse hearing necessary here, as respondent did not specifically dispute his wife’s testimony that she had delivered the petition to him (see Matter of Shaune TT., 251 AD2d 758, 758-759 [1998]).

2024With the presumption of proper service rebutted, a traverse hearing on the issue is warranted with regard to the December 18 Service (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v Jones, 139 AD3d 520, 523 [1st Dept 2016] [defendant was entitled to traverse hearing after rebutting plaintiffs affidavit of service).

2018While a proper affidavit of service attesting to personal delivery upon a defendant is prima facie evidence of proper service, "a sworn nonconclusory denial of service by a defendant is sufficient to dispute the veracity or content of the affidavit, requiring a traverse hearing" ( NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz , 7 AD3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2004] ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Jones , 139 AD3d 520, 523 [1st Dept 2016]).

2004The defendant’s disinclination to lay bare its contentions and proof regarding these issues results in a failure to meet its prima facie burden of coming forward so as to even force a traverse hearing or some other fact-finding mechanism: “where the process server is living and available to testify, defendant’s sworn denial of service renders the affidavit of service nonconclusive and shifts the burden of proof to plaintiff to substantiate the allegation of personal service.” (Anton v Amato, 101 AD2d 819, 820 [2d Dept 1984]; De Zego v Donald F. Bruhn, M.D., P.C., 99 AD2d 823 [2d Dept 1984]; Ol

2004The defendant's disinclination to lay bare its contentions and proof regarding these issues results in a failure to meet its prima facie burden of coming forward so as to even force a traverse hearing or some other fact-finding mechanism: "where the process server is living and available to testify, defendant's sworn denial of service renders the affidavit of service nonconclusive and shifts the burden {** 3 Misc 3d at 235 }of proof to plaintiff to substantiate the allegation of personal service." ( Anton v Amato , 101 AD2d 819, 820 [2d Dept 1984]; De Zego v Donald F. Bruhn, M.D., P.C. , 99 AD

2025In our view, this sworn denial of service was sufficiently "detailed and specific" to raise a legitimate factual issue necessitating a traverse hearing ( Dunn v Pallett , 42 AD3d 807 , 809 [3d Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see New York State Higher Educ.

2025In our view, this sworn denial of service was sufficiently "detailed and specific" to raise a legitimate factual issue necessitating a traverse hearing ( Dunn v Pallett , 42 AD3d 807 , 809 [3d Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see New York State Higher Educ.

2024There is no evidence in the record to conclude the court failed to ensure personal jurisdiction over defendant ( see Franpo Realty, LLC v Power Furniture Inc. , 213 AD3d 604 [1st Dept 2023]; Reliable Abstract Co., LLC v 45 John Lofts, LLC , 152 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2017], lv dismissed 30 NY3d 1056 [2018]).

2019Defendant's sworn affidavit disputing that he had a "co-tenant" or anyone living in the apartment matching the description of the person served, was sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service and require a traverse hearing ( see NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of NY v Rabinowitz , 7 AD3d 459 , 460 [2004]; Midland Funding LLC v Hernandez , 64 Misc 3d 129 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51029[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]; cf. Reliable Abstract Co., LLC v 45 John Lofts, LLC , 152 AD3d 429 [2017], lv dismissed 30 NY3d 1056 [2018]).

2022Defendant's unsubstantiated denial was insufficient to rebut the presumption of service ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Nakash , 195 AD3d 651, 652 [2021]; McCraley v Shvartsman , 174 AD3d 795 , 796 [2019]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Christie , 83 AD3d 824, 825 [2011]) or to establish defendant's entitlement to a traverse hearing ( see HSBC Bank USA v Archer , 173 AD3d 984 , 985 [2019]; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Dekom , 161 AD3d 995 , 996 [2018]).

2022Defendant's unsubstantiated denial was insufficient to rebut the presumption of service ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Nakash , 195 AD3d 651, 652 [2021]; McCraley v Shvartsman , 174 AD3d 795 , 796 [2019]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Christie , 83 AD3d 824, 825 [2011]) or to establish defendant's entitlement to a traverse hearing ( see HSBC Bank USA v Archer , 173 AD3d 984 , 985 [2019]; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Dekom , 161 AD3d 995 , 996 [2018]).

2021The portion of defendant's affidavit that purported to dispute that personal service had been made upon a person of suitable age and discretion at his residence was not specific enough to warrant a traverse hearing ( see Perilla v Carchi , 100 AD3d 429, 430 [2012]).

2019The conclusory assertion by defendant that he "never received the court papers" was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service and to warrant a traverse hearing ( see id. ; Washington Mut.

2008The traverse hearing was warranted where the parties’ conflicting affidavits disputed whether service had properly been effected (see Anello v Barry, 149 AD2d 640, 641 [1989]).

2003In its opposing papers, Citibank stood on the affidavit of its licensed process server, Michael Ballato, and requested that a traverse hearing be conducted under authority of Anello v Barry ( 149 AD2d 640 [2d Dept 1989]).

2025Accordingly, a traverse hearing is warranted in this case ( see Matter of Elliott v Butler , 8 NY3d 972, 973 [2007]; Matter of Harrell v Fischer , 114 AD3d 1092, 1092-1093 [3d Dept 2014]; cf. Matter of Davila v Rodriguez , 232 AD3d 1184, 1185 [3d Dept 2024]; People ex rel.

2025Accordingly, a traverse hearing is warranted in this case ( see Matter of Elliott v Butler , 8 NY3d 972, 973 [2007]; Matter of Harrell v Fischer , 114 AD3d 1092, 1092-1093 [3d Dept 2014]; cf. Matter of Davila v Rodriguez , 232 AD3d 1184 , 1185 [3d Dept 2024]; People ex rel.

2025Plaintiff failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was properly made on defendant pursuant to CPLR 308(2) ( see Persaud v Teaneck Nursing Ctr ., 290 AD2d 350, 351 [1st Dept 2002]).

2025Plaintiff failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was properly made on defendant pursuant to CPLR 308(2) ( see Persaud v Teaneck Nursing Ctr ., 290 AD2d 350, 351 [1st Dept 2002]).

2021Indeed, a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant based solely upon a legal presumption that has been overcome and defeated by the facts established at a traverse hearing does not comport with minimum standards of due process ( see generally World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson , 444 US 286 ; Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. , 339 US 306 ; John Galliano, S.A. v Stallion, Inc ., 15 NY3d 75, 80 ; Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc ., 117 AD2d 135, 146 ).

2014At a traverse hearing, it is the petitioner’s burden to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, and, except in circumstances not present here (see CPLR 4531), a process server’s affidavit alone is not sufficient to support a finding of jurisdiction (see Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc., 117 AD2d 135 [1986]; Kaszovitz v Weiszman, 110 AD2d 117 [1985]).

2009Sys. [1994], 301 AD2d 430 [2003] [defendant claimed he was at a meeting in Brooklyn at the same time as the process server swore to have served him in Manhattan]).

2008Sys. [1994], 301 AD2d 430 [2003]).

2025There being a failure to sufficiently rebut the prima facie case of service made out by the affidavits of [*5]service, a traverse hearing is not called for ( see BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Carrasco , 160 AD3d 688 ; Scarano v Scarano , 63 AD3d 716 [2d Dept 2009] ["no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to 'specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits' "]).

2022Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied, without a traverse hearing, defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment based on improper service ( see City of New York v Miller , 72 AD3d 726 ; Scarano v Scarano , 63 AD3d 716 ; Mortgage Elec.