Martinez v. Church of St. Gregory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Church of St. Gregory

261 A.D.2d 179, 690 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5289

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

DecidedMay 11, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 179 (Martinez v. Church of St. Gregory) 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

Martinez v. Church of St. Gregory, 261 A.D.2d 179, 690 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about April 9, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained on defendant religious corporation’s premises, granted defendant’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report that the court lacked jurisdiction over defendant due to improper service, denied plaintiff’s cross motion to reject the report, and granted defendant’s underlying motion to vacate the default judgment entered against it and dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[180]*180No reason appears for disturbing the Special Referee’s credibility finding that defendant’s employee, a 16-year-old part-time receptionist, never stated to plaintiffs process server that he was authorized to accept service of process on defendant’s behalf (see, Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135). Nor does it appear why the process server should have otherwise supposed that the receptionist was authorized to accept service of process (see, Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265, 273), or that a person who was so authorized was resisting service (cf., Austrian Lance & Stewart v Rockefeller Ctr., 163 AD2d 125, 128-129). It does not avail plaintiff that the receptionist immediately delivered the process to an authorized person (see, Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about April 9, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained on defendant religious corporation’s premises, granted defendant’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report that the court lacked jurisdiction over defendant due to improper service, denied plaintiff’s cross motion to reject the report, and granted defendant’s underlying motion to vacate the default judgment entered against it and dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[180]*180No reason appears for disturbing the Special Referee’s credibility finding that defendant’s employee, a 16-year-old part-time receptionist, never stated to plaintiffs process server that he was authorized to accept service of process on defendant’s behalf (see, Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135). Nor does it appear why the process server should have otherwise supposed that the receptionist was authorized to accept service of process (see, Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265, 273), or that a person who was so authorized was resisting service (cf., Austrian Lance & Stewart v Rockefeller Ctr., 163 AD2d 125, 128-129). It does not avail plaintiff that the receptionist immediately delivered the process to an authorized person (see, Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 179, 690 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-church-of-st-gregory-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack