Kennis v. Meleco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kennis v. Meleco

111 A.D.3d 577, 975 N.Y.S.2d 661

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 577 (Kennis v. Meleco) 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

Kennis v. Meleco, 111 A.D.3d 577, 975 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered January 23, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied plaintiffs request for an extension of time to serve defendant pursuant to CPLR 306-b, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that the process server attempted to effectuate service at defendant’s address pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) and (2) (see Farias v Simon, 73 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2010]). Under the circumstances presented, plaintiffs conduct did not satisfy the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (cf. Hochhauser v Bungeroth, 179 AD2d 431 [1st Dept 1992]). Concur— Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered January 23, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied plaintiffs request for an extension of time to serve defendant pursuant to CPLR 306-b, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that the process server attempted to effectuate service at defendant’s address pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) and (2) (see Farias v Simon, 73 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2010]). Under the circumstances presented, plaintiffs conduct did not satisfy the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (cf. Hochhauser v Bungeroth, 179 AD2d 431 [1st Dept 1992]). Concur— Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 577, 975 N.Y.S.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennis-v-meleco-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack