HSBC Bank USA v. Keeling
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
HSBC Bank USA v Keeling
2026 NY Slip Op 03231
May 21, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
HSBC Bank USA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
Cheryl Keeling et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Decided and Entered: May 21, 2026
Index No. 35472/15|Appeal No. 6677|Case No. 2024-07071|
Before: Kennedy, J.P., Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ.
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, Port Chester (Robert Yusko of counsel), for appellant.
Cheryl Keeling, respondent pro se.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered August 15, 2023, which granted defendant Cheryl Keeling's motion "to provide proof of service of the Motion to Foreclose and Sell Plaintiff's property" and sua sponte dismissed the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.
A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (Deutsche Bank Natl. Tr. Co. v Quinones, 114 AD3d 719 [2d Dept 2014], lv dismissed 38 NY3d 1164 [2022]). Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of proper service by submitting the process servers affidavits of service with its motions and in opposition to defendant's motion (see Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Greenberg, 138 AD3d 984, 985 [2d Dept 2016]). Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by a 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 (id). Defendant Keeling is not entitled to a traverse hearing because she submitted an unsworn affidavit which failed to raise an issue of fact.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 21, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
HSBC Bank USA v Keeling
2026 NY Slip Op 03231
May 21, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
HSBC Bank USA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
Cheryl Keeling et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Decided and Entered: May 21, 2026
Index No. 35472/15|Appeal No. 6677|Case No. 2024-07071|
Before: Kennedy, J.P., Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ.
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, Port Chester (Robert Yusko of counsel), for appellant.
Cheryl Keeling, respondent pro se.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered August 15, 2023, which granted defendant Cheryl Keeling's motion "to provide proof of service of the Motion to Foreclose and Sell Plaintiff's property" and sua sponte dismissed the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.
A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (Deutsche Bank Natl. Tr. Co. v Quinones, 114 AD3d 719 [2d Dept 2014], lv dismissed 38 NY3d 1164 [2022]). Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of proper service by submitting the process servers affidavits of service with its motions and in opposition to defendant's motion (see Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Greenberg, 138 AD3d 984, 985 [2d Dept 2016]). Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by a 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 (id). Defendant Keeling is not entitled to a traverse hearing because she submitted an unsworn affidavit which failed to raise an issue of fact.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 21, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.