What did the appellate court decide?

The appellate court held the appeal and sent the case back to Supreme Court to first conduct a hearing to determine whether the City was properly served before ruling on other motion issues.

Who is affected by this decision?

Both the plaintiff (Villalba) and the City of Auburn are affected because the determination about service will decide whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed against the City.

What happens next in the case?

Supreme Court must hold a traverse hearing on the service issue and then, after resolving service, decide the City’s remaining motion arguments.

Can this still be appealed?

Yes. After the trial court conducts the traverse hearing and issues a new ruling on the motion, the losing party may appeal that decision.

Villalba v. City of Auburn

Docket 168 CA 24-01818

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilRemanded

Filed: May 1, 2026 · 5 days ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Remanded
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02747
Docket: 168 CA 24-01818

Appeal from an order and judgment denying (in part) a pre-answer motion to dismiss and reserving decision on service of process as to the City

Summary

The Appellate Division held the case and remitted Villalba v. City of Auburn to Supreme Court, Cayuga County, because the trial court resolved non-jurisdictional issues before first determining whether the City was properly served. Plaintiff sued the City and officers for negligence, negligent training, and excessive force arising from a traffic stop. The appellate court directed that the lower court must first hold a traverse hearing to resolve the service/jurisdiction question and only then rule on the City’s other motion arguments.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court erred by deciding non-jurisdictional defenses before resolving whether the City was properly served
Whether a traverse hearing is required to resolve a challenge to service of process before addressing other motion grounds

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court explained that jurisdictional challenges to service must be resolved first; a traverse hearing is the proper procedure to determine whether service was effective. Because the lower court reached other merits-based motion issues before holding that hearing, the appellate court could not affirm those rulings and remanded for the required traverse hearing and subsequent determination.

Authorities Cited

Elm Mgt. Corp. v Sprung33 AD3d 753 (2d Dept 2006)
77 Commercial Holding, LLC v Central Plastic, Inc.46 Misc 3d 80 (App Term, 2d Dept, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014)

Parties

Plaintiff: Lessie Villalba
Defendant: City of Auburn
Defendant: City police officers
Attorney: D. Charles Roberts (Gross Shuman P.C.)
Attorney: Justin T. Huffman (Huffman Law Firm, P.C.)
Judge: Thomas G. Leone, A.J.

Key Dates

Decision date (Appellate Division): 2026-05-01
Supreme Court order and judgment entered: 2024-10-04

What You Should Do Next

1
Prepare for traverse hearing
The City should gather and present evidence about allegedly defective service; the plaintiff should prepare proof of proper service and witness testimony.
2
Consult or retain counsel
Both parties should work with counsel to develop evidence and legal arguments tailored to the service issue and potential subsequent motion practice.
3
Preserve evidence for appeal
Ensure the hearing is recorded and that affidavits, return-of-service documents, and witness statements are part of the record to support any future appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appellate court decide?: The appellate court held the appeal and sent the case back to Supreme Court to first conduct a hearing to determine whether the City was properly served before ruling on other motion issues.
Who is affected by this decision?: Both the plaintiff (Villalba) and the City of Auburn are affected because the determination about service will decide whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed against the City.
What happens next in the case?: Supreme Court must hold a traverse hearing on the service issue and then, after resolving service, decide the City’s remaining motion arguments.
Can this still be appealed?: Yes. After the trial court conducts the traverse hearing and issues a new ruling on the motion, the losing party may appeal that decision.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Villalba v City of Auburn - 2026 NY Slip Op 02747

Villalba v City of Auburn

2026 NY Slip Op 02747

May 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

LESSIE VILLALBA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

CITY OF AUBURN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on May 1, 2026

168 CA 24-01818

Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ.

GROSS SHUMAN P.C., BUFFALO (D. CHARLES ROBERTS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HUFFMAN LAW FIRM, P.C., AUBURN (JUSTIN T. HUFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered October 4, 2024. The order and judgment, inter alia, reserved decision on that part of defendants' motion seeking to dismiss the complaint against defendant City of Auburn on the ground that plaintiff failed to properly serve that defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Cayuga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action sounding in negligence, negligent training, and excessive force against, among others, defendant City of Auburn (City). According to plaintiff, during a traffic stop, City police officers dragged plaintiff to the hood of her vehicle and slammed her head into the hood. Plaintiff alleges that she was denied medical treatment at the police station. In lieu of answering, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Supreme Court, inter alia, reserved decision on the motion insofar as it was based on the ground that plaintiff failed to properly serve the City and held that a traverse hearing was required, but otherwise denied the motion on the other grounds raised. The City appeals from the order and judgment to the extent that it denied the motion on those other grounds.

The court should have first conducted the traverse hearing and determined the jurisdictional issue before making a determination on the other grounds raised on the motion (
see Elm Mgt. Corp. v Sprung
, 33 AD3d 753, 755 [2d Dept 2006];
77 Commercial Holding
,
LLC v Central Plastic
,
Inc.
, 46 Misc 3d 80, 83 [App Term, 2d Dept, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to conduct a traverse hearing and thereafter make a determination on the motion.

Entered: May 1, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn