On August 12, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in Anglada v. Bradford, 2026 NY Slip Op. 04917, holding that the fact that a defendant had two residences was insufficient to defeat the presumption of validity of service at one of them, explaining:
Ordinarily, the affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant was validly served. Bare and unsubstantiated denials of receipt of the summons and complaint are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service. However, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit, and necessitates an evidentiary hearing.
Here, the defendant’s submissions, which consisted of her own affidavit and an unsworn letter from her husband’s employer stating that the defendant resided with her husband and children in Anguilla, where her husband worked, as well as evidence that the defendant traveled to Anguilla, were insufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the process server’s affidavit of proper service at her residence in Brooklyn.
A party may have more than one residence. Here, although it was alleged that the defendant traveled to Anguilla, and although the defendant alleged that she resided in Anguilla and her husband’s employer believed that she resided there, the defendant submitted no evidence that she no longer resided in Brooklyn. At best, the defendant established that she spent time in Anguilla, which may have been a second residence. In view of the foregoing, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).