Newman v. Old Glory Real Estate Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newman v. Old Glory Real Estate Corp.

89 A.D.3d 599, 932 N.Y.2d 904

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 599 (Newman v. Old Glory Real Estate Corp.) 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

Newman v. Old Glory Real Estate Corp., 89 A.D.3d 599, 932 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant established that “[it] did not receive personal notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense” (CFLR 317; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141-142 [1986]). The record shows that process was served on the Secretary of State and sent to the wrong address. However, there is no evidence that defendant engaged in a deliberate attempt to avoid notice (see id. at 143; Raiola v 1944 Holding, 1 AD3d 296 [2003]). The record shows prima facie that defendant was the decedent’s employer when she was injured, which, if proven, would limit plaintiffs recovery to workers’ compensation. Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30937(U).]

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

Defendant established that “[it] did not receive personal notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense” (CFLR 317; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141-142 [1986]). The record shows that process was served on the Secretary of State and sent to the wrong address. However, there is no evidence that defendant engaged in a deliberate attempt to avoid notice (see id. at 143; Raiola v 1944 Holding, 1 AD3d 296 [2003]). The record shows prima facie that defendant was the decedent’s employer when she was injured, which, if proven, would limit plaintiffs recovery to workers’ compensation. Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30937(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 599, 932 N.Y.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-old-glory-real-estate-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack