Bartomeo v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bartomeo v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center

121 A.D.2d 670, 504 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58659

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

DecidedJune 30, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 670 (Bartomeo v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center) 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

Bartomeo v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, 121 A.D.2d 670, 504 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, the defendant Neuhoff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated April 12, 1985, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss his affirmative defenses alleging lack of in personam jurisdiction and the running of the Statute of Limitations.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The requirements of CPLR 308 (2) were complied with and in personam jurisdiction was acquired over Dr. Neuhoff within the applicable Statute of Limitations. The process server did all that he could to determine the address of Dr. NeuhofPs residence and consistently came up with an address which was, coincidentally, that of his office. There has been no showing of a different address for Dr. NeuhofFs residence, or a showing that the address used by the plaintiff could not have been that of his residence as well as his place of business. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, the defendant Neuhoff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated April 12, 1985, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss his affirmative defenses alleging lack of in personam jurisdiction and the running of the Statute of Limitations.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The requirements of CPLR 308 (2) were complied with and in personam jurisdiction was acquired over Dr. Neuhoff within the applicable Statute of Limitations. The process server did all that he could to determine the address of Dr. NeuhofPs residence and consistently came up with an address which was, coincidentally, that of his office. There has been no showing of a different address for Dr. NeuhofFs residence, or a showing that the address used by the plaintiff could not have been that of his residence as well as his place of business. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 670, 504 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartomeo-v-brookdale-hospital-medical-center-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack