Hermida v. Labiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hermida v. Labiner

202 A.D.2d 212, 609 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1824

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 212 (Hermida v. Labiner) 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

Hermida v. Labiner, 202 A.D.2d 212, 609 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about February 25, 1993, which dismissed the action as against defendant Montefiore Hospital for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No issue of fact exists concerning the delivery of process by plaintiff’s process server to a person who was not authorized to receive service of process for defendant Montefiore Hospital. Nor is there any factual support in the record for plaintiff’s claim that the process server was misled into delivering the process to the wrong person or that defendant otherwise willfully attempted to evade service. We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments for claiming jurisdiction and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about February 25, 1993, which dismissed the action as against defendant Montefiore Hospital for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No issue of fact exists concerning the delivery of process by plaintiff’s process server to a person who was not authorized to receive service of process for defendant Montefiore Hospital. Nor is there any factual support in the record for plaintiff’s claim that the process server was misled into delivering the process to the wrong person or that defendant otherwise willfully attempted to evade service. We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments for claiming jurisdiction and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 212, 609 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hermida-v-labiner-nyappdiv-1994.