DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Paltoo Dass and Dindyal Singh appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Salvatore Modica, J.), dated May 10, 2018. The order, without a hearing, denied the motion of the defendants Paltoo Dass and Dindyal Singh, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate an order of the same court entered February 28, 2017, granting the plaintiffs unopposed motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against those defendants and for an order of reference, and appointing a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, or, in the alternative, for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process on those defendants.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property located in Queens. The defendants Paltoo Dass and Dindyal Singh (hereinafter together the defendants) failed to appear or answer the complaint. In an order entered February 28, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs unopposed motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants and for an order of reference, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, among other things, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. While that motion was pending, the defendants moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order entered February 28, 2017, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, or, in the alternative, for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process on them. The Supreme Court, without a hearing, denied the defendants’ motion, and they appeal.
“[A] process servers affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service” (Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Chaplin, 65 A.D.3d 588, 589, 884 N.Y.S.2d 254; see U.S. Natl. Bank Assn. v. Melton, 90 A.D.3d 742, 743, 934 N.Y.S.2d 352). “Although a defendants sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process servers 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 servers affidavits’ ” (Scarano v. Scarano, 63 A.D.3d 716, 716, 880 N.Y.S.2d 682 [citation omitted], quoting Simonds v. Grobman, 277 A.D.2d 369, 370, 716 N.Y.S.2d 692; see BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Carrasco, 160 A.D.3d 688, 689, 71 N.Y.S.3d 366).
Here, the process servers affidavits of service reflect that the defendants were each served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) on February 8, 2014, by delivery of the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion at the mortgaged premises, followed by the required mailing to the address of the mortgaged premises. Those affidavits of service established, prima facie, proper service of process (see CPLR 308[2]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, their submissions in support of their motion were insufficient to defeat the presumption of proper service or to warrant a hearing as to that matter (see Citimortgage, Inc. v. Jimenez, 195 A.D.3d 594, 144 N.Y.S.3d 641; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Rahmanan, 194 A.D.3d 792, 149 N.Y.S.3d 131; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Carrasco, 160 A.D.3d at 689, 71 N.Y.S.3d 366). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion.
CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, IANNACCI and FORD, JJ., concur.