Garcia v. Munseob

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Munseob

33 A.D.3d 586, 821 N.Y.S.2d 465

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 586 (Garcia v. Munseob) 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

Garcia v. Munseob, 33 A.D.3d 586, 821 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated August 1, 2005 which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and [587]*587the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the issue of whether proper service was effected and for a new determination of the motion.

In this particular case, considering the process server’s affidavit of service as supplemented by the process server’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion (see Galarza v Saddle Cove Assoc., LLC, 22 AD3d 523 [2005]; cf Gurevitch v Goodman, 269 AD2d 355, 355-356 [2000]), a hearing was necessary to determine the issue of whether proper service was effected. Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated August 1, 2005 which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and [587]*587the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the issue of whether proper service was effected and for a new determination of the motion.

In this particular case, considering the process server’s affidavit of service as supplemented by the process server’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion (see Galarza v Saddle Cove Assoc., LLC, 22 AD3d 523 [2005]; cf Gurevitch v Goodman, 269 AD2d 355, 355-356 [2000]), a hearing was necessary to determine the issue of whether proper service was effected. Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 586, 821 N.Y.S.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-munseob-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack