McGuirk v. Pub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGuirk v. Pub

250 A.D.2d 824, 673 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5968

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 824 (McGuirk v. Pub) 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

McGuirk v. Pub, 250 A.D.2d 824, 673 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), entered March 21, 1996, which, upon an order of the same court dated March 8, 1996, made after a hearing, granting the motion by the defendant, Mugs Pub, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Mugs Pub.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On November 9, 1993, the plaintiffs process server visited [825]*825the defendant Mugs Pub, the site of the alleged accident, to serve a summons and complaint on it. Finding only a bartender there, the process server left the establishment and walked outside to the parking lot where his car was parked. There, he saw a man wearing a white shirt and black pants. It is undisputed that this individual, Joseph Curley, identified himself as the brother of Michael Curley, the owner of Mugs Pub, and indicated that he would make sure that his brother received the papers. At the hearing to determine the validity of service of process, Joseph Curley denied that he was employed by Mugs Pub or authorized to accept service therefor (see, CPLR 311), or that he had ever represented to anyone that he was so employed or authorized.

The hearing court’s assessment of a witness’s credibility is ordinarily entitled to substantial deference (see, Avakian v De Los Santos, 183 AD2d 687). Under these circumstances, we perceive no reason to disturb its determination on appeal.

That Michael Curley actually did receive notice of the action did not serve to render the improper service valid (see, McDonald v Ames Supply Co., 22 NY2d 111, 114-115; Hailey v Hyster Co., 190 AD2d 711).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), entered March 21, 1996, which, upon an order of the same court dated March 8, 1996, made after a hearing, granting the motion by the defendant, Mugs Pub, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Mugs Pub.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On November 9, 1993, the plaintiffs process server visited [825]*825the defendant Mugs Pub, the site of the alleged accident, to serve a summons and complaint on it. Finding only a bartender there, the process server left the establishment and walked outside to the parking lot where his car was parked. There, he saw a man wearing a white shirt and black pants. It is undisputed that this individual, Joseph Curley, identified himself as the brother of Michael Curley, the owner of Mugs Pub, and indicated that he would make sure that his brother received the papers. At the hearing to determine the validity of service of process, Joseph Curley denied that he was employed by Mugs Pub or authorized to accept service therefor (see, CPLR 311), or that he had ever represented to anyone that he was so employed or authorized.

The hearing court’s assessment of a witness’s credibility is ordinarily entitled to substantial deference (see, Avakian v De Los Santos, 183 AD2d 687). Under these circumstances, we perceive no reason to disturb its determination on appeal.

That Michael Curley actually did receive notice of the action did not serve to render the improper service valid (see, McDonald v Ames Supply Co., 22 NY2d 111, 114-115; Hailey v Hyster Co., 190 AD2d 711).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 824, 673 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcguirk-v-pub-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack