National Union Fire Insurance v. Montgomery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Union Fire Insurance v. Montgomery

245 A.D.2d 150, 665 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13040

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 150 (National Union Fire Insurance v. Montgomery) 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

National Union Fire Insurance v. Montgomery, 245 A.D.2d 150, 665 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered on or about October 10, 1996, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and granted its motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defenses only to the extent of directing a traverse, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff summary judgment in the event personal jurisdiction is sustained, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s affidavit that he did not open the door to his home for a man who knocked on the door and said he had “some papers” but neither identified himself nor the papers he had, and that after the man left plaintiff found the summons and complaint on his doorstep, is sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit that he personally delivered the summons and complaint to defendant, and raises an issues of fact as to jurisdiction (see, Cooper v Drobenko Bros. Realty, 200 AD2d [151]*151415; Coyne v Besser, 154 AD2d 503, lv denied 75 NY2d 711). However, if service is found to have been proper, plaintiff would be entitled to summary judgment, since the guarantee in issue specifically prohibits assertion of any defenses to the underlying note (see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Allen, 232 AD2d 80, 88-89). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered on or about October 10, 1996, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and granted its motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defenses only to the extent of directing a traverse, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff summary judgment in the event personal jurisdiction is sustained, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s affidavit that he did not open the door to his home for a man who knocked on the door and said he had “some papers” but neither identified himself nor the papers he had, and that after the man left plaintiff found the summons and complaint on his doorstep, is sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit that he personally delivered the summons and complaint to defendant, and raises an issues of fact as to jurisdiction (see, Cooper v Drobenko Bros. Realty, 200 AD2d [151]*151415; Coyne v Besser, 154 AD2d 503, lv denied 75 NY2d 711). However, if service is found to have been proper, plaintiff would be entitled to summary judgment, since the guarantee in issue specifically prohibits assertion of any defenses to the underlying note (see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Allen, 232 AD2d 80, 88-89). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 150, 665 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-union-fire-insurance-v-montgomery-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack