Borello v. Trustees of Central Presbyterian Church

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Borello v. Trustees of Central Presbyterian Church

233 A.D.2d 212, 650 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11795

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order of the Appellate Term, of the Supreme Court, First Department (Parness, J. P., McCooe and Glen, JJ.), entered February 22, 1995, which affirmed the order of Civil Court, New York County (Wilfred O’Connor, J.), entered on or about May 25, 1994, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant demonstrated that its worker who was served was not authorized to receive process. There was no competent evidence adduced at the traverse hearing of any inquiry by the process server regarding the authority of the person served, nor was there any indication that the person served made any representation to the process server of having authority to receive service on behalf of the corporate defendant. Moreover, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had been served "in a manner which, objectively viewed, [was] calculated to give the corporation fair notice” (Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265, 272). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order of the Appellate Term, of the Supreme Court, First Department (Parness, J. P., McCooe and Glen, JJ.), entered February 22, 1995, which affirmed the order of Civil Court, New York County (Wilfred O’Connor, J.), entered on or about May 25, 1994, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant demonstrated that its worker who was served was not authorized to receive process. There was no competent evidence adduced at the traverse hearing of any inquiry by the process server regarding the authority of the person served, nor was there any indication that the person served made any representation to the process server of having authority to receive service on behalf of the corporate defendant. Moreover, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had been served "in a manner which, objectively viewed, [was] calculated to give the corporation fair notice” (Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265, 272). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Borello v. Trustees of Central Presbyterian Church, 233 A.D.2d 212, 650 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

233 A.D.2d 212 (Borello v. Trustees of Central Presbyterian Church) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related