Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v. Palmieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v. Palmieri

113 A.D.3d 648, 978 N.Y.2d 700

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 648 (Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v. Palmieri) 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

Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v. Palmieri, 113 A.D.3d 648, 978 N.Y.2d 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages, inter alia, for abuse of process. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that neither of the two defendants was properly served. Following a hearing at which the process server testified for the plaintiffs, and an employee of one of the defendants testified for the defendants, the Supreme Court found that service had been properly made on the defendants, and denied their motion.

In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, this Court’s authority is as broad as the hearing court’s authority, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]). Here, the hearing court’s determination that the defendants were properly served was supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing (see Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d at 716; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]), and we discern no basis for disturbing that determination.

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages, inter alia, for abuse of process. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that neither of the two defendants was properly served. Following a hearing at which the process server testified for the plaintiffs, and an employee of one of the defendants testified for the defendants, the Supreme Court found that service had been properly made on the defendants, and denied their motion.

In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, this Court’s authority is as broad as the hearing court’s authority, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]). Here, the hearing court’s determination that the defendants were properly served was supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing (see Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d at 716; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]), and we discern no basis for disturbing that determination.

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 648, 978 N.Y.2d 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-shore-beach-club-inc-v-palmieri-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack