Collier, Cohen, Crystal & Bock v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collier, Cohen, Crystal & Bock v. Fisher

206 A.D.2d 260, 613 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 260 (Collier, Cohen, Crystal & Bock v. Fisher) 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

Collier, Cohen, Crystal & Bock v. Fisher, 206 A.D.2d 260, 613 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 28, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant Steven J. Fisher’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the absence of competent documentary support for appellant’s claim that his residence address had changed prior to the date of service of the summons and complaint, the motion court properly found, based upon course of business documentation, telephone book listings, and the listing of appellant’s name as a resident in the building directory and on the door of the apartment in question, that appellant was properly served by the "nail and mail” method at his dwelling place (see, Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v Arrao, 100 AD2d 949, 950), following due diligence efforts by the plaintiff to serve appellant personally and refusal of service by a person of suitable age and discretion at the residence address (CPLR 308 [4]). Additionally, the aborted settlement negotiations between the parties belie appellant’s claim of a legally acceptable excuse for the default (see, Klein v Actors & Directors Lab, 95 AD2d 757, 758). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 28, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant Steven J. Fisher’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the absence of competent documentary support for appellant’s claim that his residence address had changed prior to the date of service of the summons and complaint, the motion court properly found, based upon course of business documentation, telephone book listings, and the listing of appellant’s name as a resident in the building directory and on the door of the apartment in question, that appellant was properly served by the "nail and mail” method at his dwelling place (see, Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v Arrao, 100 AD2d 949, 950), following due diligence efforts by the plaintiff to serve appellant personally and refusal of service by a person of suitable age and discretion at the residence address (CPLR 308 [4]). Additionally, the aborted settlement negotiations between the parties belie appellant’s claim of a legally acceptable excuse for the default (see, Klein v Actors & Directors Lab, 95 AD2d 757, 758). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 260, 613 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collier-cohen-crystal-bock-v-fisher-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack