Daniels v. Farrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniels v. Farrell

216 A.D.2d 513, 628 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7063

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 513 (Daniels v. Farrell) 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

Daniels v. Farrell, 216 A.D.2d 513, 628 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an [514]*514order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated March 9, 1994, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant is estopped from contesting the validity of service of process at the address on his driver’s license, which he gave to the plaintiff Betty Daniels at the scene of the accident (see, Lavery v Lopez, 131 AD2d 820; Treutlein v Gutierrez, 129 AD2d 791-792; Hill v Jones, 113 AD2d 874).

Furthermore, the defendant did not timely raise before the Supreme Court his contention that the plaintiffs failed to attempt to serve him pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) or (2) before serving him pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). Thus, the defendant’s contention that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence is unpreserved for appellate review. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an [514]*514order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated March 9, 1994, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant is estopped from contesting the validity of service of process at the address on his driver’s license, which he gave to the plaintiff Betty Daniels at the scene of the accident (see, Lavery v Lopez, 131 AD2d 820; Treutlein v Gutierrez, 129 AD2d 791-792; Hill v Jones, 113 AD2d 874).

Furthermore, the defendant did not timely raise before the Supreme Court his contention that the plaintiffs failed to attempt to serve him pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) or (2) before serving him pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). Thus, the defendant’s contention that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence is unpreserved for appellate review. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 513, 628 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-farrell-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack