Gureje v. Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gureje v. Richardson

59 A.D.3d 494, 873 N.Y.S.2d 190

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 494 (Gureje v. Richardson) 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

Gureje v. Richardson, 59 A.D.3d 494, 873 N.Y.S.2d 190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 10, 2008, which granted the defendants’ motion to vacate an order of the same court (Ruditzky, J.), dated February 2, 2007, granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a judgment upon their default in appearing or answering and setting the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages, to vacate an order of the same court (Morano, J.), dated March 20, 2007, made after the inquest on the issue of damages, directing an award of damages in the principal sum of $50,000, and to vacate the bill of costs and disbursements entered on April 5, 2007.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The summons and complaint in the instant action were served upon the defendants by the “affix and mail” method (see CPLR 308 [4]). However, the record demonstrates that this service was ineffective since the plaintiff failed to exercise the requisite due diligence in first attempting to serve the defendants pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) or (2) (see Moran v Harting, 212 AD2d 517, 518 [1995]; Walker v Manning, 209 AD2d 691, 692 [1994]; Mc[495]*495Neely v Harrison, 208 AD2d 909, 910 [1994]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello, McCarthy and Belen, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 10, 2008, which granted the defendants’ motion to vacate an order of the same court (Ruditzky, J.), dated February 2, 2007, granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a judgment upon their default in appearing or answering and setting the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages, to vacate an order of the same court (Morano, J.), dated March 20, 2007, made after the inquest on the issue of damages, directing an award of damages in the principal sum of $50,000, and to vacate the bill of costs and disbursements entered on April 5, 2007.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The summons and complaint in the instant action were served upon the defendants by the “affix and mail” method (see CPLR 308 [4]). However, the record demonstrates that this service was ineffective since the plaintiff failed to exercise the requisite due diligence in first attempting to serve the defendants pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) or (2) (see Moran v Harting, 212 AD2d 517, 518 [1995]; Walker v Manning, 209 AD2d 691, 692 [1994]; Mc[495]*495Neely v Harrison, 208 AD2d 909, 910 [1994]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 494, 873 N.Y.S.2d 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gureje-v-richardson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack