Conforti v. Beekman Downtown Hospital

79 A.D.2d 968, 435 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9840
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 968 (Conforti v. Beekman Downtown Hospital) 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
Conforti v. Beekman Downtown Hospital, 79 A.D.2d 968, 435 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 24, 1980, which order denied plaintiff’s motion to renew a prior March 27 order, which granted defendant Porter’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 8) to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and which denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to strike the said jurisdictional affirmative defense, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the plaintiffs’ motion to renew granted, and on renewal the defendants’ motion denied and the plaintiffs’ cross motion granted, with costs. The appeal from the order of March 27, 1980 is dismissed as academic, without costs. This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries and by the coplaintiff for loss of consortium. The defendant Porter is a physician. The process server arrived at the defendant’s office but was not permitted by the secretary to see the defendant as he was busy with patients. The secretary then stated that she was authorized to accept service of the summons. The defendant served a notice of appearance and demand for a complaint, and when issue was joined, there was included in the answer an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss was made by the defendant on that ground. The court at Special Term granted the motion on the ground that effective substituted service had not been made. However, there was no contention that there had been substituted service. The plaintiff contends that there had been personal service in accordance with CPLR 308 (subd 1), and we so find. (See Slagen v Marwill, 78 Misc 2d 275.) Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Carro, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.

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

Related

M. Prusman, Ltd. v. Ariel Maritime Group, Inc.
719 F. Supp. 214 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Dorfman v. Leidner
150 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Davis v. Musler
713 F.2d 907 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Calloway v. National Services Industries, Inc.
93 A.D.2d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Giordano v. McMurtry
90 A.D.2d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Espy v. Giorlando
85 A.D.2d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Sparacino v. Winner
82 A.D.2d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 A.D.2d 968, 435 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conforti-v-beekman-downtown-hospital-nyappdiv-1981.