Bank of America, NA v. Tobin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of America, NA v. Tobin

33 A.D.3d 640, 821 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 640 (Bank of America, NA v. Tobin) 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

Bank of America, NA v. Tobin, 33 A.D.3d 640, 821 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Veronica Ann Tobin, sued herein as John Doe, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), dated February 4, 2004, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied her motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered July 28, 2003, upon her failure to appear or answer, and [641]*641to set aside the referee’s sale on the ground that she was not properly served with the summons and complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the appellant by proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (1). Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Veronica Ann Tobin, sued herein as John Doe, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), dated February 4, 2004, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied her motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered July 28, 2003, upon her failure to appear or answer, and [641]*641to set aside the referee’s sale on the ground that she was not properly served with the summons and complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the appellant by proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (1). Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 640, 821 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-america-na-v-tobin-nyappdiv-2006.