Multari v. Westchester Car Phone, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Multari v. Westchester Car Phone, Inc.

137 Misc. 2d 626, 525 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2636

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 137 Misc. 2d 626 (Multari v. Westchester Car Phone, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Multari v. Westchester Car Phone, Inc., 137 Misc. 2d 626, 525 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for determination de novo upon a hearing.

Under the circumstances, the lower court should have held [627]*627a hearing to determine whether service was proper. At said hearing such issues as the place of tenant’s principal office or principal place of business and the date of the mailing of process to tenant can be more fully developed. In the event service is shown to have been properly made, the tenant’s motion to vacate the final judgment should be denied as the tenant offers no satisfactory explanation for its inordinate delay in moving to vacate the judgment (see, Dooley v Flavel, 28 AD2d 1115).

DiPaola, P. J., Geiler and Widlitz, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for determination de novo upon a hearing.

Under the circumstances, the lower court should have held [627]*627a hearing to determine whether service was proper. At said hearing such issues as the place of tenant’s principal office or principal place of business and the date of the mailing of process to tenant can be more fully developed. In the event service is shown to have been properly made, the tenant’s motion to vacate the final judgment should be denied as the tenant offers no satisfactory explanation for its inordinate delay in moving to vacate the judgment (see, Dooley v Flavel, 28 AD2d 1115).

DiPaola, P. J., Geiler and Widlitz, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 Misc. 2d 626, 525 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/multari-v-westchester-car-phone-inc-nyappterm-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack