Bubul v. Port Parties, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bubul v. Port Parties, Ltd.

83 A.D.3d 517, 920 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedApril 14, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 517 (Bubul v. Port Parties, Ltd.) 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

Bubul v. Port Parties, Ltd., 83 A.D.3d 517, 920 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sue Anne Hoahng, Special Ref.), entered September 13, 2010, which determined that plaintiff obtained personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellant, and denied appellant’s order to show cause to vacate the default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s findings that appellant was properly served in this action are substantially supported by the record, and we perceive no basis for disturbing the Referee’s credibility [518]*518determinations (Thomas v Thomas, 21 AD3d 949 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 704 [2006]; Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 AD2d 705 [1985]). We have considered the remainder of appellant’s arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sue Anne Hoahng, Special Ref.), entered September 13, 2010, which determined that plaintiff obtained personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellant, and denied appellant’s order to show cause to vacate the default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s findings that appellant was properly served in this action are substantially supported by the record, and we perceive no basis for disturbing the Referee’s credibility [518]*518determinations (Thomas v Thomas, 21 AD3d 949 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 704 [2006]; Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 AD2d 705 [1985]). We have considered the remainder of appellant’s arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 517, 920 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bubul-v-port-parties-ltd-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack