GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Eidelkind

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Eidelkind

205 A.D.2d 663, 614 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6433

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

DecidedJune 20, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 663 (GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Eidelkind) 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

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Eidelkind, 205 A.D.2d 663, 614 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated July 29, 1991, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint or to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on the issue of whether service under CPLR 308 (2) was properly effected.

Since it cannot be ascertained from this record whether the delivery of the summons and complaint was effected at the defendant’s actual place of business or at a former residence address, a hearing must be conducted on the issue of whether service under CPLR 308 (2) was properly effected (see, CPLR 308 [2]). We find the defendant’s other contention to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated July 29, 1991, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint or to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on the issue of whether service under CPLR 308 (2) was properly effected.

Since it cannot be ascertained from this record whether the delivery of the summons and complaint was effected at the defendant’s actual place of business or at a former residence address, a hearing must be conducted on the issue of whether service under CPLR 308 (2) was properly effected (see, CPLR 308 [2]). We find the defendant’s other contention to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 663, 614 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ge-capital-mortgage-services-inc-v-eidelkind-nyappdiv-1994.