Matter of Krodel v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Krodel v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.

139 A.D.3d 572, 32 N.Y.S.3d 139

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

DecidedMay 24, 2016

Docket1220 152176/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 572 (Matter of Krodel v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.) 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

Matter of Krodel v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc., 139 A.D.3d 572, 32 N.Y.S.3d 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered May 6, 2015, which, after a traverse hearing, granted respondent Abraham Bragin’s motion to dismiss the proceeding against him for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Although the motion court did not find the process server to *573 be credible, it is uncontested that cameras located on the exterior of the building in which Bragin’s apartment was located captured the process server’s attempts at service on November 10, 11, and 13, 2014. Although Bragin raises on appeal purported flaws with the attempted service on November 10, he did not do so at the traverse hearing. Instead, his arguments pertained to November 11. In any event, we reject Bragin’s arguments pertaining to November 10.

On November 11, the video demonstrates that the process server approached the building, rang the doorbell multiple times, and left after five minutes. Bragin did not argue at the traverse hearing that the door was unlocked or that the process server failed to check it on that date. While the server’s attempt may be characterized as minimal diligence, we find that it was sufficient to warrant substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), especially when considered in conjunction with his attempts on November 10 and 13 (see Albert Wagner & Son v Schreiber, 210 AD2d 143 [1st Dept 1994]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered May 6, 2015, which, after a traverse hearing, granted respondent Abraham Bragin’s motion to dismiss the proceeding against him for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Although the motion court did not find the process server to *573 be credible, it is uncontested that cameras located on the exterior of the building in which Bragin’s apartment was located captured the process server’s attempts at service on November 10, 11, and 13, 2014. Although Bragin raises on appeal purported flaws with the attempted service on November 10, he did not do so at the traverse hearing. Instead, his arguments pertained to November 11. In any event, we reject Bragin’s arguments pertaining to November 10.

On November 11, the video demonstrates that the process server approached the building, rang the doorbell multiple times, and left after five minutes. Bragin did not argue at the traverse hearing that the door was unlocked or that the process server failed to check it on that date. While the server’s attempt may be characterized as minimal diligence, we find that it was sufficient to warrant substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), especially when considered in conjunction with his attempts on November 10 and 13 (see Albert Wagner & Son v Schreiber, 210 AD2d 143 [1st Dept 1994]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 572, 32 N.Y.S.3d 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-krodel-v-amalgamated-dwellings-inc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack