Mazer v. Gerstinblith

256 A.D. 671, 11 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4811
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 21, 1939·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An order for substituted service of a summons upon a natural person must direct that service be made at his residence except in an instance where such residence cannot be found. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 231.)

Upon the proof presented, the Special Term was justified in finding that the address at which substituted service upon defendant [672]*672was directed by the court’s order, was, in fact, the defendant’s residence. (Cf. Johnson v. Diamond, 208 App. Div. 639.)

The order should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Mazer v. Gerstinblith, 256 A.D. 671, 11 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

256 A.D. 671 (Mazer v. Gerstinblith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Aloisi v. Deaton
36 Misc. 2d 251 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Robinson v. Five One Five Associates Corp.
180 Misc. 906 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1943)