Citibank, N.A. v. Maglipon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N.A. v. Maglipon

303 A.D.2d 353, 755 N.Y.S.2d 653

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 353 (Citibank, N.A. v. Maglipon) 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

Citibank, N.A. v. Maglipon, 303 A.D.2d 353, 755 N.Y.S.2d 653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Antonietta Maglipon appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), entered October 12, 2001, as, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied her motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 18, 1999, upon her failure to answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that personal jurisdiction was acquired over her by proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). “It is well settled that matters of credibility are best determined by the hearing court, whose decision should not be disturbed if supportable by a fair interpretation of the evidence” (Van Raalte v Metz, 161 AD2d 760 [1990]; see Krechmer v Boulakh, 277 AD2d 288 [2000]). Since the determination is supported by the record, it will not be disturbed.

The appellant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court because it is based upon matters dehors the record. Florio, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Antonietta Maglipon appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), entered October 12, 2001, as, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied her motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 18, 1999, upon her failure to answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that personal jurisdiction was acquired over her by proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). “It is well settled that matters of credibility are best determined by the hearing court, whose decision should not be disturbed if supportable by a fair interpretation of the evidence” (Van Raalte v Metz, 161 AD2d 760 [1990]; see Krechmer v Boulakh, 277 AD2d 288 [2000]). Since the determination is supported by the record, it will not be disturbed.

The appellant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court because it is based upon matters dehors the record. Florio, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 353, 755 N.Y.S.2d 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-na-v-maglipon-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack