[*2]Appeal by tenants from an order of the District Court, Nassau County (S. Jaeger, J.), entered April 26, 2002, denying their motion to vacate a default final judgment in a summary holdover proceeding.

Order unanimously reversed without costs and matter remanded to the court below for a determination de novo following a traverse hearing.

Tenants' sworn denials, that true copies of the notices of petition and petitions were served upon them personally, sufficed to put at issue the factual assertions to the contrary set forth in the affidavits of service (Verille v Kopic, 304 AD2d 823; Rox Riv 83 Partners v Etttinger, 276 AD2d 782, 783; Balancio v Santorelli, 267 AD2d 189; Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657, 659), and thus, a traverse hearing should have been held. This is not a case where a denial of receipt is conclusory as against sworn assertions of service by alternate means (Sando Realty Corp. v Aris, 209 AD2d 682; Genwav Corp. v Elgut, 177 AD2d 467; cf. Matter of Shaune TT., 251 AD2d 758) or the presumption of proper mailing (Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122).

We do not reach the merits of the claim that Saturday service violated tenants' rights under General Business Law § 13 inasmuch as tenants' appellate counsel conceded at oral argument that said claim is without merit (see e.g. Pitts v City of Buffalo, 298 AD2d 1003, 1004). Finally, should service be sustained following the traverse hearing, tenants' remaining claims would be academic because even if meritorious, they would not establish an excusable default sufficient to justify vacatur of the default final judgment.
[*3]Decision Date: August 19, 2003