Jiminez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jiminez v. City of New York

5 A.D.3d 182, 772 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2348

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 9, 2004·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[183]*183Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 21, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against the six individual defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No jurisdiction was obtained over the individually named correction officers, who concededly worked at Hikers Island, by means of substituted service at the Department of Correction headquarters in Manhattan (see Lorensen v Digman, 1998 WL 37593, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 861 [ND NY, Jan. 27, 1998]). There are no disputed facts that would require a traverse hearing. In the absence of jurisdiction, these individuals were relieved of having to offer a meritorious defense or reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint (European Am. Bank v Legum, 248 AD2d 206, 208 [1998]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[183]*183Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 21, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against the six individual defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No jurisdiction was obtained over the individually named correction officers, who concededly worked at Hikers Island, by means of substituted service at the Department of Correction headquarters in Manhattan (see Lorensen v Digman, 1998 WL 37593, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 861 [ND NY, Jan. 27, 1998]). There are no disputed facts that would require a traverse hearing. In the absence of jurisdiction, these individuals were relieved of having to offer a meritorious defense or reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint (European Am. Bank v Legum, 248 AD2d 206, 208 [1998]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Jiminez v. City of New York, 5 A.D.3d 182, 772 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

5 A.D.3d 182 (Jiminez v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related