Ehmer v. Modernismo Publications, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ehmer v. Modernismo Publications, Ltd.

134 A.D.2d 562, 521 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50767

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 562 (Ehmer v. Modernismo Publications, Ltd.) 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

Ehmer v. Modernismo Publications, Ltd., 134 A.D.2d 562, 521 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel, the defendants Modernismo Publications, Ltd. and Flynt Distributing Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated September 4, 1986, which, after a hearing, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 3212, 3211 [a] [8]), and struck so much of their answer as asserted that affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to meet the plaintiffs’ burden of showing that in each instance the plaintiffs’ process servers acted reasonably and with due diligence under the circumstances and that the manner of service objectively viewed was calculated to and did give the corporate defendants fair notice of the commencement of the action (see, CPLR 311 [1]; Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265; Central Savannah Riv. Area Resource Dev. Agency v White Eagle Intl, 110 AD2d 742). The process servers made appropriate inquiries and did all that they should be expected to do to see that the corporations were properly served (see, Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., supra).

We find no merit to the contention that the conduct of the hearing court deprived the corporate defendants of a fair hearing. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel, the defendants Modernismo Publications, Ltd. and Flynt Distributing Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated September 4, 1986, which, after a hearing, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 3212, 3211 [a] [8]), and struck so much of their answer as asserted that affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to meet the plaintiffs’ burden of showing that in each instance the plaintiffs’ process servers acted reasonably and with due diligence under the circumstances and that the manner of service objectively viewed was calculated to and did give the corporate defendants fair notice of the commencement of the action (see, CPLR 311 [1]; Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265; Central Savannah Riv. Area Resource Dev. Agency v White Eagle Intl, 110 AD2d 742). The process servers made appropriate inquiries and did all that they should be expected to do to see that the corporations were properly served (see, Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., supra).

We find no merit to the contention that the conduct of the hearing court deprived the corporate defendants of a fair hearing. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 562, 521 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehmer-v-modernismo-publications-ltd-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack