Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Conroy v. International Terminal Operating Co.

Conroy v. International Terminal Operating Co.

87 A.D.2d 858, 449 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16340
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 19, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 858 (Conroy v. International Terminal Operating Co.) 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
Conroy v. International Terminal Operating Co., 87 A.D.2d 858, 449 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cooper, J.), entered July 2, 1981, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. Order affirmed, with costs. The record establishes that the process server delivered the summons to [859]*859the acting receptionist for the defendant corporation who, within one minute thereafter, delivered it to her “boss” — one authorized to accept service — who was sitting in his office two feet away from the receptionist. Bearing in mind that CPLR 311 dealing with service on corporations should be liberally construed (see Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265), we hold that such facts are sufficient to make the service valid. While the process server did not make manual delivery of the summons to the person authorized to accept service, in this instance what occurred was the equivalent. As was said in Green v Morningside Hgts. Housing Corp. (13 Mise 2d 124, 125, affd 7 AD2d 708): “Like many other propositions it is a matter of degree. Where the delivery is so close both in time and space that it can be classified as part of the same act service is effected.” Titone, J. P., Lazer, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Babelito, S.A.
306 F. Supp. 2d 468 (S.D. New York, 2004)
United States v. W. Weber Co., Inc.
146 F. Supp. 2d 910 (Court of International Trade, 2001)
Academy of Irm v. LVI Environmental Services, Inc.
687 A.2d 669 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1997)
Melkaz International Inc. v. Flavor Innovation Inc.
167 F.R.D. 634 (E.D. New York, 1996)
Ciotti v. King
175 A.D.2d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Lefton v. Freedman
163 A.D.2d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Jones v. Nossoughi
147 A.D.2d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Leo v. General Electric Co.
111 F.R.D. 407 (E.D. New York, 1986)
Macchia v. Russo
496 N.E.2d 680 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Heinisch v. Goehringer
121 A.D.2d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Luongo v. Luongo
111 A.D.2d 333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Bradley v. Musacchio
94 A.D.2d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Central Savannah River Area Resource Development Agency, Inc. v. White Eagle International, Inc.
117 Misc. 2d 338 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.2d 858, 449 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conroy-v-international-terminal-operating-co-nyappdiv-1982.