DiSalvo v. Ordway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiSalvo v. Ordway

208 A.D.2d 798, 618 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10054

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 798 (DiSalvo v. Ordway) 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

DiSalvo v. Ordway, 208 A.D.2d 798, 618 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered February 17, 1993, which, after a hearing, dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Craig Ordway on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that issues of credibility are properly determined by the hearing court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nagib v Tolette-Velcek, 133 AD2d 72, 73; Vega v City of New York, 194 AD2d 537). A review of the record reveals that there is more than sufficient evidence to support the hearing court’s determination rejecting the testimony of the process server and crediting the testimony of the defendant Craig Ordway’s witnesses. Accordingly, it is clear that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that service of the summons and complaint was proper (see, Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657, 659). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, 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 medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered February 17, 1993, which, after a hearing, dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Craig Ordway on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that issues of credibility are properly determined by the hearing court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nagib v Tolette-Velcek, 133 AD2d 72, 73; Vega v City of New York, 194 AD2d 537). A review of the record reveals that there is more than sufficient evidence to support the hearing court’s determination rejecting the testimony of the process server and crediting the testimony of the defendant Craig Ordway’s witnesses. Accordingly, it is clear that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that service of the summons and complaint was proper (see, Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657, 659). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 798, 618 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disalvo-v-ordway-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack