Ramos v. Samuels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramos v. Samuels

6 A.D.3d 598, 774 N.Y.S.2d 787

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

DecidedApril 19, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 598 (Ramos v. Samuels) 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

Ramos v. Samuels, 6 A.D.3d 598, 774 N.Y.S.2d 787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Diana Santana appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silver-man, J.H.O.), dated November 22, 2002, as, after a hearing on the issue of service of process, found that she was properly served and, in effect, denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate her default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The conflicting testimony at the hearing on the issue of service of process presented a question of credibility, and the [599]*599Judicial Hearing Officer credited the testimony of the plaintiffs process server. There is no reason to disturb this determination, which is entitled to deference on appeal (see Ortiz v Jamwant, 305 AD2d 477, 478 [2003]; Koslosky v Koslosky, 267 AD2d 357 [1999]). Altman, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Crane, 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 defendant Diana Santana appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silver-man, J.H.O.), dated November 22, 2002, as, after a hearing on the issue of service of process, found that she was properly served and, in effect, denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate her default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The conflicting testimony at the hearing on the issue of service of process presented a question of credibility, and the [599]*599Judicial Hearing Officer credited the testimony of the plaintiffs process server. There is no reason to disturb this determination, which is entitled to deference on appeal (see Ortiz v Jamwant, 305 AD2d 477, 478 [2003]; Koslosky v Koslosky, 267 AD2d 357 [1999]). Altman, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Crane, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 598, 774 N.Y.S.2d 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-samuels-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack