Board of Managers of Le Trianon Condominium v. 1439 Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of Le Trianon Condominium v. 1439 Realty Corp.

186 A.D.2d 437

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 437 (Board of Managers of Le Trianon Condominium v. 1439 Realty Corp.) 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

Board of Managers of Le Trianon Condominium v. 1439 Realty Corp., 186 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on December 23, 1991, which, after a traverse hearing, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Special Referee that the facts here are "almost identical” to those in Costine v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. (173 AD2d 422). Plaintiff’s process server identified himself to a security guard at a gate outside a private residential community in which defendant-appellant lives. When the guard ascertained that defendant was not at home, the process server explained the purpose of his visit and asked if the guard would deliver the papers to defendant. The guard said he would and accepted the papers. "By screening the visitor and representing that he would pass along the legal papers to defendant resident, the guard exhibited sufficient maturity and responsibility” for purposes of service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (supra, at 422). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on December 23, 1991, which, after a traverse hearing, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Special Referee that the facts here are "almost identical” to those in Costine v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. (173 AD2d 422). Plaintiff’s process server identified himself to a security guard at a gate outside a private residential community in which defendant-appellant lives. When the guard ascertained that defendant was not at home, the process server explained the purpose of his visit and asked if the guard would deliver the papers to defendant. The guard said he would and accepted the papers. "By screening the visitor and representing that he would pass along the legal papers to defendant resident, the guard exhibited sufficient maturity and responsibility” for purposes of service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (supra, at 422). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-le-trianon-condominium-v-1439-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack