Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234 (1979)
r
r
To obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant through out-of-state service, the plaintiff must strictly comply with the statutory requirements regarding the manner of service, and a mere presumption of regularity in the affidavit of service can be overcome by the defendant’s sworn denial of proper service if unrebutted.
r
r
Summary
r
Feinstein sued Bergner, attempting service outside of New York. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the affidavits of service lacked sufficient factual detail to demonstrate proper personal delivery as required by CPLR 308(1) and 313. The Court further found that any presumption of regularity afforded to the affidavits was overcome by the defendant’s sworn testimony denying proper service, which the plaintiffs failed to adequately rebut with additional evidence. Because proper service was not established, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
r
r
Facts
r
Plaintiffs attempted to serve defendant outside of New York State. The method of service was contested. The plaintiffs’ affidavits of service were challenged as lacking specific details about how service was effectuated. The defendant submitted sworn testimony asserting that proper service had not been achieved.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the plaintiffs met their burden of proving service outside the State pursuant to CPLR 313, specifically whether the affidavits of service contained the requisite factual and descriptive information to demonstrate personal delivery to the defendant under CPLR 308(1), and whether any presumption of regularity in the affidavits was overcome by the defendant’s sworn testimony.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the affidavits of service lacked the necessary factual and descriptive details to show personal delivery to the defendant, and the defendant’s sworn testimony rebutted any presumption of regularity, which plaintiffs failed to counter with additional evidence.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals based its decision on the plaintiffs’ failure to meet the burden of proving proper service outside the state as required by CPLR 313. The court scrutinized the affidavits of service, finding them