Britt v. Klindt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Britt v. Klindt

209 A.D.2d 370, 619 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11015

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 370 (Britt v. Klindt) 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

Britt v. Klindt, 209 A.D.2d 370, 619 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

-—In a medical [371]*371malpractice action, the defendant Joyce A. Klindt appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated September 13, 1993, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and denied the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was completed pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), and jurisdiction obtained over the appellant. The fact that the process server’s testimony at the hearing was contradictory to his original affidavit of service with respect to when mailing was performed raised an issue of credibility which was resolved in his favor by the hearing court (cf., Avakian v De Los Santos, 183 AD2d 687). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

-—In a medical [371]*371malpractice action, the defendant Joyce A. Klindt appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated September 13, 1993, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and denied the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was completed pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), and jurisdiction obtained over the appellant. The fact that the process server’s testimony at the hearing was contradictory to his original affidavit of service with respect to when mailing was performed raised an issue of credibility which was resolved in his favor by the hearing court (cf., Avakian v De Los Santos, 183 AD2d 687). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 370, 619 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-klindt-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack