Fallica v. Sconzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fallica v. Sconzo

169 A.D.2d 701, 565 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 418

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 701 (Fallica v. Sconzo) 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

Fallica v. Sconzo, 169 A.D.2d 701, 565 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered April 6, 1989, which, after a hearing, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the weight of the evidence presented at the hearing supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that service of process on the defendant was not properly accomplished so as to give the court personal jurisdiction over him in this case. The question of the credibil[702]*702ity of the process server’s testimony is addressed to the hearing court in the first instance, and we discern no basis in the record for disturbing its determination with respect to that issue. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, 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, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered April 6, 1989, which, after a hearing, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the weight of the evidence presented at the hearing supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that service of process on the defendant was not properly accomplished so as to give the court personal jurisdiction over him in this case. The question of the credibil[702]*702ity of the process server’s testimony is addressed to the hearing court in the first instance, and we discern no basis in the record for disturbing its determination with respect to that issue. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 701, 565 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fallica-v-sconzo-nyappdiv-1991.