Arc Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Pullman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arc Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Pullman

104 A.D.2d 959, 480 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20400

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.2d 959 (Arc Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Pullman) 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

Arc Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Pullman, 104 A.D.2d 959, 480 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover the value of materials and labor supplied to defendant by plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated February 7, 1984, which, after a traverse hearing, denied his motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss this affirmative defense.

Order affirmed, with costs.

[960]*960At a traverse hearing, the only witness who testified was Frank Euvino, a deputy sheriff of the Bergen County (New Jersey) Sheriff’s Department. Euvino testified that in June, 1978, he received a summons and complaint in the instant action from the Sheriff of Bergen County. He attempted to serve defendant at the latter’s home on June 15, 1978, at 9:30 a.m. Euvino rang the front doorbell, identified himself and announced the purpose of his visit to a person behind the door who stated that defendant was not at home. The person behind the door never identified himself or herself, and the door was never opened.

After four subsequent and similarly unsuccessful attempts, the witness returned the papers to the Sheriff’s office and requested substituted service. That office then contacted plaintiff’s attorney and ascertained that it should proceed with substituted service. On July 11, 1978, Euvino affixed a copy of the summons and complaint to defendant’s door. A copy of each document was mailed to defendant six days later.

In his affidavit in support of a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, defendant did not deny that he had received the summons and complaint in the mail nor did he deny that a copy of each had been affixed to his door. Under these circumstances, we agree with the finding of Special Term that service was proper. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover the value of materials and labor supplied to defendant by plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated February 7, 1984, which, after a traverse hearing, denied his motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss this affirmative defense.

Order affirmed, with costs.

[960]*960At a traverse hearing, the only witness who testified was Frank Euvino, a deputy sheriff of the Bergen County (New Jersey) Sheriff’s Department. Euvino testified that in June, 1978, he received a summons and complaint in the instant action from the Sheriff of Bergen County. He attempted to serve defendant at the latter’s home on June 15, 1978, at 9:30 a.m. Euvino rang the front doorbell, identified himself and announced the purpose of his visit to a person behind the door who stated that defendant was not at home. The person behind the door never identified himself or herself, and the door was never opened.

After four subsequent and similarly unsuccessful attempts, the witness returned the papers to the Sheriff’s office and requested substituted service. That office then contacted plaintiff’s attorney and ascertained that it should proceed with substituted service. On July 11, 1978, Euvino affixed a copy of the summons and complaint to defendant’s door. A copy of each document was mailed to defendant six days later.

In his affidavit in support of a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, defendant did not deny that he had received the summons and complaint in the mail nor did he deny that a copy of each had been affixed to his door. Under these circumstances, we agree with the finding of Special Term that service was proper. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 959, 480 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arc-plumbing-heating-corp-v-pullman-nyappdiv-1984.