Loury v. Abramson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loury v. Abramson

178 A.D.2d 514, 577 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16366

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 514 (Loury v. Abramson) 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

Loury v. Abramson, 178 A.D.2d 514, 577 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated March 12, 1990, which denied his motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.

We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action. Process was served upon the defendant pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), the so-called "nail and mail” provision. However, the affidavit of service made no showing of any attempt to effect service pursuant to [515]*515CPLR 308 (1) and (2), and was therefore insufficient, as a matter of law, to satisfy the "due diligence” requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see, Magalios v Benjamin, 160 AD2d 773; Moss v Corwin, 154 AD2d 443). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Copertino, 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 legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated March 12, 1990, which denied his motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.

We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action. Process was served upon the defendant pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), the so-called "nail and mail” provision. However, the affidavit of service made no showing of any attempt to effect service pursuant to [515]*515CPLR 308 (1) and (2), and was therefore insufficient, as a matter of law, to satisfy the "due diligence” requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see, Magalios v Benjamin, 160 AD2d 773; Moss v Corwin, 154 AD2d 443). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 514, 577 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loury-v-abramson-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack