Sanjurjo v Milio, 2021 NY Slip Op 50208(U) [70 Misc 3d 1224(A)]

700 NYS2d 87 [1999]; In re de Sanchez, 57 AD3d 452, 454, 870 NYS2d 24 [1st Dept
2008]).

Respondent does not allege the service address is improper or otherwise contest proper
service with specificity. In fact, the address served is the one on file with DHPD.[FN4]
In light of a facially proper affidavit of service that shows compliance with NYC Admin Code
§ 27-2115(j) [allowing for service of in tenant-initiated HP proceedings to be by registered
or certified mail, return receipt requested],[FN5]
respondent's first affirmative defense is dismissed. (see Benjamin v Avis Rent-A-Car
Systems, Inc., 208 AD2d 449, 450, 617 NYS2d 719 [1st Dept 1994]; Genway Corp v
Elgut, 177 AD2d 467, 575 NYS2d 899 [2nd Dept 1991]).

Respondent's second affirmative defense alleges the amended petition was not timely or
properly served because it was not served by certified mail, return receipt requested and was not
served by December 19, 2020. As to the form of the mailing, petitioner's affidavit of service
alleges service by certified mail, return receipt requested to the same registered address the [*3]original order to show cause and petition were served at.[FN6]
The presumption of proper mailing is not rebutted by the answer's conclusory allegations. (see
Kihl v Pfeffer, supra).

In any event, once this court had jurisdiction over the respondent by virtue of proper service
of the December 17, 2020 order to show cause and petition, there is no requirement that an
amended pleading be served in the same manner. (Patrician Plastic Corp. v Bernadel Realty
Corp., (25 NY2d 599, 607, 307 NYS2d 868 [1970] ("Extensive research fails to yield either
statute or decisional precedent which would require in all cases that a defendant already in an