Contimortgage Corp. v. Doggette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Contimortgage Corp. v. Doggette

270 A.D.2d 448, 706 N.Y.S.2d 336, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3190

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 448 (Contimortgage Corp. v. Doggette) 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

Contimortgage Corp. v. Doggette, 270 A.D.2d 448, 706 N.Y.S.2d 336, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants John Doggette and Undean Ford-Doggette appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated December 9, 1998, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 17, 1995, upon their default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly sustained service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) based upon its finding that the plaintiff satisfied the “due diligence” requirement of that statute (see, Hanover New England v MacDougall, 202 AD2d 724). Since personal jurisdiction was properly obtained over the defendants, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to vacate the judgment. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 defendants John Doggette and Undean Ford-Doggette appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated December 9, 1998, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 17, 1995, upon their default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly sustained service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) based upon its finding that the plaintiff satisfied the “due diligence” requirement of that statute (see, Hanover New England v MacDougall, 202 AD2d 724). Since personal jurisdiction was properly obtained over the defendants, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to vacate the judgment. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 448, 706 N.Y.S.2d 336, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contimortgage-corp-v-doggette-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack