D'Alesandro v. Many

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Alesandro v. Many

137 A.D.2d 484, 523 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 764

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 137 A.D.2d 484 (D'Alesandro v. Many) 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

D'Alesandro v. Many, 137 A.D.2d 484, 523 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter J.), dated June 2, 1986, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon the plaintiff’s default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to establish either proper service on the defendants or that he had a meritorious claim. The plaintiff alleged "nail and mail” service upon the defendants (CPLR 308 [4]). The affidavit of substituted service, on its face, demonstrates a lack of due diligence warranting resort to such service (Kaszovitz v Weiszman, 110 AD2d 117, 120).

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5104 (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Caiazzo v Crespi, 124 AD2d 623). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter J.), dated June 2, 1986, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon the plaintiff’s default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to establish either proper service on the defendants or that he had a meritorious claim. The plaintiff alleged "nail and mail” service upon the defendants (CPLR 308 [4]). The affidavit of substituted service, on its face, demonstrates a lack of due diligence warranting resort to such service (Kaszovitz v Weiszman, 110 AD2d 117, 120).

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5104 (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230; Caiazzo v Crespi, 124 AD2d 623). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 484, 523 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalesandro-v-many-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack