Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Sheikh, 2020 NY Slip Op 02823 [2d Dept. 2020]
Here, in support of his cross motion, the defendant established that the plaintiff failed to properly serve its motion for summary judgment and for an order of reference because the plaintiff mailed the motion papers to an incorrect address for the defendant’s counsel, resulting in the defendant’s lack of notice of the motion. In opposition, the plaintiff merely speculated that the motion papers may have been forwarded to the defendant’s counsel by the U.S. Postal Service, or that counsel may have otherwise received notice of the motion. Given that defective service of the motion was established (see generally Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v Commissioner of Labor, 166 AD3d 1135, 1137; Jagmohan v City of New York, 14 AD3d 491, 492), the defendant was not obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default or a potentially meritorious defense (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Whitelock, 154 AD3d 906, 907). Moreover, the failure to give the defendant timely notice of the motion deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and rendered the resulting order entered October 3, 2016, void (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Whitelock, 154 AD3d at 907; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Chase, 147 AD3d 964, 965; Golden v Golden, 128 AD2d 672, 673).
Rodriguez v 60 Graham, LLC, 173 AD3d 1095 [2d Dept. 2020]
“Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Leonardo, 167 AD3d 816, 817  [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Chichester v Alal-Amin Grocery & Halal Meat, 100 AD3d 820, 820 ; Indymac Fed. Bank FSB v Quattrochi, 99 AD3d 763, 764 ). “To be entitled to vacatur of a default judgment . . . a defendant must overcome the presumption raised by the process server’s affidavit of service” (Machovec v Svoboda, 120 AD3d 772, 773 ). “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; however, no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the affidavit of service” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Leonardo, 167 AD3d at 817). The sworn denial of receipt of service must be a “detailed and specific contradiction” of the allegations in the process server’s affidavit (Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343, 344 ; see Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716 ).
Here, City Signs relied on an affidavit of the individual allegedly served in support of its contention that there were discrepancies between her appearance and the description of her provided in the process server’s affidavit. However, the claimed discrepancies were minor and did not warrant a hearing on the issue of service (see US Bank N.A. v Cherubin, 141 AD3d 514, 515-516 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v Baser, 137 AD3d 735, 736 ; Indymac Fed. Bank, FSB v Hyman, 74 AD3d 751, 751 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v McGloster, 48 AD3d 457 ). Additionally, City Signs failed to substantiate the claimed discrepancies (see US Bank N.A. v Cherubin, 141 AD3d at 516; Indymac Fed. Bank, FSB v Hyman, 74 AD3d at 751).
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Dennis, 2020 NYSlipOp 02039 [2d Dept. 2020]
RPAPL 1304 provides that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in the statute, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer must give notice to the borrower. The statute provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower (see RPAPL 1304 ). “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” (Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer, 172 AD3d 17, 20 ; see Citimortgage, Inc. v Banks, 155 AD3d 936, 936-937 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ozcan, 154 AD3d 822, 825-826 ), “and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” (Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d 95, 106 ). “By requiring the lender or mortgage loan servicer to send the RPAPL 1304 notice by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail, the Legislature implicitly provided the means for the plaintiff to demonstrate its compliance with the statute, i.e., by proof of the requisite mailing, which can be established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” (Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer, 172 AD3d at 20-21 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 508-509 ; Bank of Am., N.A. v Bittle, 168 AD3d 656, 658 ; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Mandrin, 160 AD3d 1014, 1016 ).
Here, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of mailing or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly mailed notice to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit of Rashad Blanchard, who was employed as a loan analyst by the parent company of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, and copies of the purported notices. The plaintiff submitted only one letter that purported to constitute the statutorily required 90-day notice of default, dated December 22, 2008. Although the letter contained the statement “sent via certified mail,” with a 20-digit number below it, no receipt or corresponding document issued by the United States Postal Service was submitted proving that the letter was actually sent by certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. The plaintiff also failed to submit any documentary evidence that notice was sent by first-class mail. Further, Blanchard did not aver that the notice was sent in the manner required pursuant to RPAPL 1304, i.e., by certified mail and first-class mail. Moreover, since he did not aver that he personally mailed the notice, or that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., the entity that purportedly sent the notices, he did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Offley, 170 AD3d 1240, 1242 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v Henderson, 163 AD3d 601, 603 ; Bank of Am., N.A. v Wheatley, 158 AD3d 736, 738 ).
The bold is mine.