|Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Colmar Realty, LLC|
|2014 NYSlipOp 07326 [121 AD3d 1040]|
|October 29, 2014|
|Appellate Division, Second Department|
|Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.|
| Flushing Savings Bank, FSB,
Colmar Realty, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Richard E. Hershenson, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Berliner & Pilson, Great Neck, N.Y. (Richard J. Pilson of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Colmar Realty, LLC, and Wanda Conti appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), entered June 12, 2013, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate a foreclosure sale of the subject property and, thereupon, to set aside a referee's deed.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was to vacate a foreclosure sale of the subject property and, thereupon, to set aside a referee's deed. The plaintiff submitted affidavits of service which raised a presumption that the notice of sale was properly mailed and received by the appellants and their counsel (see Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943, 944-945 ; Matter of Rodriguez v Wing, 251 AD2d 335, 336 ). Their mere denial of receipt of the notice of sale was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper mailing and receipt, and failed to raise an issue of fact requiring a hearing (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122 ; Mei Yun Li v Qing He Xu, 38 AD3d 731, 732 ; Terlizzese v Robinson's Custom Serv., Inc., 25 AD3d 547, 548 ).
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit. Dickerson, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.