Busini v. Mandelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Busini v. Mandelli

181 A.D.2d 535

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 535 (Busini v. Mandelli) 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

Busini v. Mandelli, 181 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis I. Kaplan, J.H.O.), entered January 16, 1991, which, after a traverse hearing, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for improper service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer’s determination that service was not properly made pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) should not be disturbed where a reasonable view of the evidence supports defendant’s contention that the apartment building at which the summons and complaint were left was no longer, at the time of such service, his dwelling place or usual place of abode (see, 67 Wall St. Co. v Franklin Natl. Bank, 44 AD2d 825, affd 37 NY2d 245). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kassal 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 (Louis I. Kaplan, J.H.O.), entered January 16, 1991, which, after a traverse hearing, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for improper service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer’s determination that service was not properly made pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) should not be disturbed where a reasonable view of the evidence supports defendant’s contention that the apartment building at which the summons and complaint were left was no longer, at the time of such service, his dwelling place or usual place of abode (see, 67 Wall St. Co. v Franklin Natl. Bank, 44 AD2d 825, affd 37 NY2d 245). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busini-v-mandelli-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack