Beacom v. Mangone Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beacom v. Mangone Homes, Inc.

233 A.D.2d 470, 650 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12705

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 1996·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the nonparty State Insurance Fund appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [471] Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), entered April 7, 1995, which granted the separate motions of the defendants third-party plaintiffs Mangone Homes, Inc., and T.C.M. Construction Corp., and the second and third third-party plaintiff Rosner Siding Company, Inc., for expedient service upon it pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) of the proposed third- and fourth-party summonses and complaints against its insured.

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in authorizing service pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) and compelling the nonparty-appellant State Insurance Fund to accept service on behalf of its insured, Robert Ferrara d/b/a Robert’s Siding (see, Dobkin v Chapman, 21 NY2d 490; Rego v Thom Rock Realty Co., 201 AD2d 270; Esposito v Ruggerio, 193 AD2d 713; Saulo v Noumi, 119 AD2d 657). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the nonparty State Insurance Fund appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [471] Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), entered April 7, 1995, which granted the separate motions of the defendants third-party plaintiffs Mangone Homes, Inc., and T.C.M. Construction Corp., and the second and third third-party plaintiff Rosner Siding Company, Inc., for expedient service upon it pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) of the proposed third- and fourth-party summonses and complaints against its insured.

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in authorizing service pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) and compelling the nonparty-appellant State Insurance Fund to accept service on behalf of its insured, Robert Ferrara d/b/a Robert’s Siding (see, Dobkin v Chapman, 21 NY2d 490; Rego v Thom Rock Realty Co., 201 AD2d 270; Esposito v Ruggerio, 193 AD2d 713; Saulo v Noumi, 119 AD2d 657). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Beacom v. Mangone Homes, Inc., 233 A.D.2d 470, 650 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

233 A.D.2d 470 (Beacom v. Mangone Homes, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related