Bunin v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bunin v. Hoffman

244 A.D.2d 163, 663 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11089

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 163 (Bunin v. Hoffman) 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

Bunin v. Hoffman, 244 A.D.2d 163, 663 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered June 4, 1997, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted plaintiffs motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report finding personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellant doctor, and denied defendant’s cross motion to reject the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of jurisdiction is sufficiently supported by the testimony of the process server at the traverse hearing that, on the day in question, after a person who appeared to be a nurse pointed to and identified a nearby person as being defendant, [164]*164he delivered the summons and complaint to that person, who generally matched the physical description of defendant that had been given to him and who identified himself as being defendant. Neither the minor inaccuracies in the process server’s description of defendant in his affidavit of service, nor defendant’s unsubstantiated claim that at the alleged time of service he was not at the alleged place of service, warrant disturbing the Special Referee’s findings crediting the process server and discrediting defendant and his witness (see, Black v Pappalardo, 132 AD2d 640; Kardanis v Veils, 90 AD2d 727). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered June 4, 1997, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted plaintiffs motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report finding personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellant doctor, and denied defendant’s cross motion to reject the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of jurisdiction is sufficiently supported by the testimony of the process server at the traverse hearing that, on the day in question, after a person who appeared to be a nurse pointed to and identified a nearby person as being defendant, [164]*164he delivered the summons and complaint to that person, who generally matched the physical description of defendant that had been given to him and who identified himself as being defendant. Neither the minor inaccuracies in the process server’s description of defendant in his affidavit of service, nor defendant’s unsubstantiated claim that at the alleged time of service he was not at the alleged place of service, warrant disturbing the Special Referee’s findings crediting the process server and discrediting defendant and his witness (see, Black v Pappalardo, 132 AD2d 640; Kardanis v Veils, 90 AD2d 727). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 163, 663 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunin-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack