Heredia v. Contino

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Heredia v. Contino

79 Misc. 2d 222, 360 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1274

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 14, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 Misc. 2d 222 (Heredia v. Contino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heredia v. Contino, 79 Misc. 2d 222, 360 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment unanimously reversed, with $10 costs to defendant, and new trial ordered.

A sheriff is liable to the one he serves for negligently making out a false return of service (Green v. Ferguson, 14 Johns. 389 [1817]). In our view, a professional process server should be held to substantially the same liability imposed upon sheriffs. By signing an affidavit of personal service without reading it, when in fact service had been made by “ nail and mail ”, defendant breached the duty he owed to plaintiff, the defendant in the prior proceeding. The resulting default judgment in that proceeding was vacated without deciding whether jurisdiction was ever obtained over the plaintiff’s person. Since in personam , jurisdiction may be acquired by the use of substituted service when due and diligent efforts at personal service have met with failure (see 1405 Realty Corp. v. Napier, 68 Misc 2d 793), a new trial is required to determine whether the process server’s attempts constituted “ due diligence” in satisfaction of the requirements of CPLR 308 (subd. 4).

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Pittoni and McCullough, JJ.

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

Memorandum. Judgment unanimously reversed, with $10 costs to defendant, and new trial ordered.

A sheriff is liable to the one he serves for negligently making out a false return of service (Green v. Ferguson, 14 Johns. 389 [1817]). In our view, a professional process server should be held to substantially the same liability imposed upon sheriffs. By signing an affidavit of personal service without reading it, when in fact service had been made by “ nail and mail ”, defendant breached the duty he owed to plaintiff, the defendant in the prior proceeding. The resulting default judgment in that proceeding was vacated without deciding whether jurisdiction was ever obtained over the plaintiff’s person. Since in personam , jurisdiction may be acquired by the use of substituted service when due and diligent efforts at personal service have met with failure (see 1405 Realty Corp. v. Napier, 68 Misc 2d 793), a new trial is required to determine whether the process server’s attempts constituted “ due diligence” in satisfaction of the requirements of CPLR 308 (subd. 4).

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Pittoni and McCullough, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 Misc. 2d 222, 360 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heredia-v-contino-nyappterm-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack