Patrick Obah, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Google Roblox & Roblox, Defendant-Respondent. (2026)

Per Curiam.

Order (Eliezer Rodriguez, J.), entered July 29, 2025, reversed, without costs, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded to Civil Court for a traverse hearing.

While plaintiff's affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence of proper service (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Njoku, 148 AD3d 438 [2017]), defendant's sworn, nonconclusory denial was sufficient to dispute the veracity and/or content of the affidavit, requiring a traverse hearing (see NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of NY v Rabinowitz, 7 AD3d 459, 460 [2004]). Specifically, the parties' competing averments raise a factual issue concerning whether defendant had an employee working at the address listed in the affidavit of service on the date the process server claimed to have personally served defendant (see Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC v Scaramellino, 161 AD3d 572 [2018]).

The court also erred in dismissing plaintiff's endorsed complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Where as here, the endorsed complaint fails to adequately apprise the defendant of the nature and substance of the action (see CCA 902 [a] [1]), "the complaint should not be dismissed outright, but rather the plaintiff should be directed to serve and file a formal pleading pursuant to CCA 902 (e)" (Gounder v Upton Cohen & Slamowitz, 20 Misc 3d 141[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51677[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Thus, in the event the traverse is overruled, plaintiff should be directed to file a formal amended complaint within 30 days.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 15, 2026