HSBC Bank USA v. Keeling

<div>HSBC Bank USA v Keeling - 2026 NY Slip Op 03231 <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>HSBC Bank USA v Keeling</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03231</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>HSBC Bank USA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Cheryl Keeling et al., Defendants-Respondents.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: May 21, 2026</p> <p>Index No. 35472/15|Appeal No. 6677|Case No. 2024-07071|</p> <p>Before: Kennedy, J.P., Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ. </p> <div> <p>McCabe, Weisberg &amp; Conway, LLC, Port Chester (Robert Yusko of counsel), for appellant.</p> <p>Cheryl Keeling, respondent pro se.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>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.</p> <p>A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (<i>Deutsche Bank Natl. Tr. Co. v Quinones</i>, 114 AD3d 719 [2d Dept 2014], <i>lv dismissed</i> 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 (<i>see</i> <i>Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Greenberg</i>, 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 (<i>id)</i>. Defendant Keeling is not entitled to a traverse hearing because she submitted an unsworn affidavit which failed to raise an issue of fact.</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.</p> <p>ENTERED: May 21, 2026</p> </div> <div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div> </div>