Olesniewicz v. Khan

8 A.D.3d 354, 777 N.Y.S.2d 705, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7788
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 7, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 354 (Olesniewicz v. Khan) 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
Olesniewicz v. Khan, 8 A.D.3d 354, 777 N.Y.S.2d 705, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J), dated February 6, 2004, which, after a hearing (Dye, J.), denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendants’ failure to appear or answer the complaint and granted the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from a decision of the same court dated August 19, 2002, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the cross motion is denied.

[355]*355The process server’s affidavits constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) (see Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369 [2000]). The defendants failed to submit a sworn denial of service. Moreover, the affidavit of Michael Levine, a nonparty, was insufficient to rebut the plaintiff s showing (see Simonds v Grobman, supra).

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 208.29 based upon the plaintiffs failure to submit the process server’s logbook at the hearing on the issue of service of process. The foregoing rule is a New York City Civil Court rule and thus does not apply to this action, which was commenced in the Supreme Court. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gray-Joseph v. Shuhai Liu
90 A.D.3d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pietranico
33 Misc. 3d 528 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
In re the Estate of Nieto
70 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Argent Mortgage Co. v. Vlahos
66 A.D.3d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Sturino v. Nino Tripicchio & Son Landscaping
65 A.D.3d 1327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
425 East 26th Street Owners Corp. v. Beaton
50 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Johnson v. Deas
32 A.D.3d 253 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Mauro v. Mauro
13 A.D.3d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Lynch v. New York City Transit Authority
12 A.D.3d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 A.D.3d 354, 777 N.Y.S.2d 705, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olesniewicz-v-khan-nyappdiv-2004.