Home/New York Supreme Court/Chernick v. Rodriguez

Chernick v. Rodriguez

2 Misc. 2d 891, 150 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2125
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 23, 1956
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 2 Misc. 2d 891 (Chernick v. Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chernick v. Rodriguez, 2 Misc. 2d 891, 150 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2125 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

Opinion

Benjamin Brenner, J.

The named defendant appears specially to set aside the alleged service of summons and complaint. There appears to be no need for a reference because upon the facts admitted by the defendant the service is valid.

Defendant admits (1) that he had identified himself to the process server; (2) that he refused to open the door leading to his apartment, and (3) that after the process server dropped the summons and complaint in the vestibule entrance he secured possession of the papers and forwarded them to his lawyer. Thus, there were in this case the necessary elements of “ delivery ” pursuant to section 225 of the Civil Practice Act and ‘‘ leaving ’’ in compliance with rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Practice. (Schenkman v. Schenkman, 206 Misc. 660, affd. 284 App. Div. 1068.)

The closed window of a car separated the process server from the defendant in Levine v. National Transp. Co. (204 Misc. 202, affd. 282 App. Div. 720) where service was declared valid. I see no substantial difference between that case and the case at bar. Here a closed door separated the process server from the defendant. In each case the process server indicated his purpose; in each case the defendant identified himself and declined to accept the process; finally, in each case the process was left with the defendant who had both knowledge and possession thereof. Clearly, the defendant failed to perform the duty imposed upon “ persons within the jurisdiction to submit to the service of process.” (Gumperz v. Hofmann, 245 App. Div. 622, 624, affd. 271 N. Y. 544.)

Motion denied. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

Currier v. Baldridge
914 F.2d 993 (Seventh Circuit, 1990)
Spector v. Berman
119 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Silverstein v. Diaz
124 Misc. 2d 597 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1984)
Bossuk v. Steinberg
447 N.E.2d 56 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Bossuk v. Steinberg
88 A.D.2d 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
206 E. 63rd St. Corp. v. Price
75 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Regan v. Tally Ho Trucking Co.
103 Misc. 2d 269 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1980)
In re the Estate of Turecamo
96 Misc. 2d 120 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1978)
Gardner v. Gardner
81 Misc. 2d 734 (NYC Family Court, 1975)
Davidman v. Ortiz
63 Misc. 2d 984 (New York Supreme Court, 1970)
McDonald v. Ames Supply Co.
238 N.E.2d 726 (New York Court of Appeals, 1968)
Miller v. Alda Corp.
53 Misc. 2d 279 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1967)
Paul v. Weiss
48 Misc. 2d 683 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Marcy v. Woodin
18 A.D.2d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
In re Barbara
7 A.D.2d 340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Misc. 2d 891, 150 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chernick-v-rodriguez-nysupct-1956.