Kanner v. Gerber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanner v. Gerber

197 A.D.2d 673, 602 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9936

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 673 (Kanner v. Gerber) 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

Kanner v. Gerber, 197 A.D.2d 673, 602 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), entered June 25, 1991, which denied her motion to strike the second and third affirmative defenses set forth in the defendant’s answer, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served with the summons.

The affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server alleges that this action was commenced on January 3, 1991, by delivering the summons and complaint to a "person of suitable age and discretion” at the defendant’s office, and by mailing the summons and complaint to the defendant’s office in accordance with the requirements of CPLR 308 (2). Although a properly executed affidavit of service ordinarily raises a presumption that a proper mailing has occurred (see, Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943), the affidavit of service in this case fails to conclusively demonstrate strict compliance with the mailing requirements of CPLR 308 (2), and the defendant has submitted a sworn denial that he received a duplicate copy of the summons and complaint by mail. Under the circumstances of this case, a hearing should be conducted at which the plaintiff will be required to establish that service was proper by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Slutzky v Aron Estates Corp., 157 Misc 2d 749; see also, Continental Hosts v Levine, 170 AD2d 430; Cadin Contr. v Rich Agency, 158 AD2d 442; Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Eiber and O’Brien, 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 dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), entered June 25, 1991, which denied her motion to strike the second and third affirmative defenses set forth in the defendant’s answer, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served with the summons.

The affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server alleges that this action was commenced on January 3, 1991, by delivering the summons and complaint to a "person of suitable age and discretion” at the defendant’s office, and by mailing the summons and complaint to the defendant’s office in accordance with the requirements of CPLR 308 (2). Although a properly executed affidavit of service ordinarily raises a presumption that a proper mailing has occurred (see, Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943), the affidavit of service in this case fails to conclusively demonstrate strict compliance with the mailing requirements of CPLR 308 (2), and the defendant has submitted a sworn denial that he received a duplicate copy of the summons and complaint by mail. Under the circumstances of this case, a hearing should be conducted at which the plaintiff will be required to establish that service was proper by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Slutzky v Aron Estates Corp., 157 Misc 2d 749; see also, Continental Hosts v Levine, 170 AD2d 430; Cadin Contr. v Rich Agency, 158 AD2d 442; Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 673, 602 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanner-v-gerber-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack