Donnelly v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donnelly v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

191 A.D.2d 343, 596 N.Y.S.2d 2

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 343 (Donnelly v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center) 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

Donnelly v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, 191 A.D.2d 343, 596 N.Y.S.2d 2 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered May 21, 1991, which, after a hearing, granted defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss the action as against him for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[344]*344In dismissing the action as against defendant-respondent for lack of jurisdiction, the IAS Court credited the testimony of his secretary that no process server had been to the office on the date of the alleged service. This determination of credibility rested upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, inasmuch as there were significant discrepancies between the testimony of plaintiffs’ process server especially in regard to the appearance of defendant’s secretary upon whom service purportedly was made and that of defendant’s secretary generally. Such a determination should not be disturbed on appeal (see, Laurence v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 119 AD2d 808).

We have considered plaintiffs’ argument that defendant should be estopped from invoking the defense of lack of jurisdiction, and find it to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered May 21, 1991, which, after a hearing, granted defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss the action as against him for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[344]*344In dismissing the action as against defendant-respondent for lack of jurisdiction, the IAS Court credited the testimony of his secretary that no process server had been to the office on the date of the alleged service. This determination of credibility rested upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, inasmuch as there were significant discrepancies between the testimony of plaintiffs’ process server especially in regard to the appearance of defendant’s secretary upon whom service purportedly was made and that of defendant’s secretary generally. Such a determination should not be disturbed on appeal (see, Laurence v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 119 AD2d 808).

We have considered plaintiffs’ argument that defendant should be estopped from invoking the defense of lack of jurisdiction, and find it to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 343, 596 N.Y.S.2d 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donnelly-v-st-lukes-roosevelt-hospital-center-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack