2110-2118 ACBP, LLC v. Holland-Harden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2110-2118 ACBP, LLC v. Holland-Harden

118 A.D.3d 461, 987 N.Y.S.2d 369

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 5, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 461 (2110-2118 ACBP, LLC v. Holland-Harden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

2110-2118 ACBP, LLC v. Holland-Harden, 118 A.D.3d 461, 987 N.Y.S.2d 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered May 15, 2013, which, following a traverse hearing, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and vacate the judgment issued against her, and reinstated a previously vacated Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, dated August 14, 2012, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied its burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellant (defendant), pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). At the traverse hearing, the process server testified that, after attempting to personally serve defendant and her husband at their apartment building, he delivered the pleadings to the building’s doorman, a “person of suitable age and discretion” (CPLR 308 [2]; F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen, 41 NY2d 794, 797 [1977]). The process server also testified that, consistent with his affidavit of service, he then mailed the pleadings to defendant’s residence. Although the mailings were mistakenly addressed, under the circumstances of this case, the mailing requirement of CPLR 308 (2) was satisfied.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered May 15, 2013, which, following a traverse hearing, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and vacate the judgment issued against her, and reinstated a previously vacated Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, dated August 14, 2012, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied its burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellant (defendant), pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). At the traverse hearing, the process server testified that, after attempting to personally serve defendant and her husband at their apartment building, he delivered the pleadings to the building’s doorman, a “person of suitable age and discretion” (CPLR 308 [2]; F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen, 41 NY2d 794, 797 [1977]). The process server also testified that, consistent with his affidavit of service, he then mailed the pleadings to defendant’s residence. Although the mailings were mistakenly addressed, under the circumstances of this case, the mailing requirement of CPLR 308 (2) was satisfied.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 461, 987 N.Y.S.2d 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2110-2118-acbp-llc-v-holland-harden-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack