Ridgeway v. St. John's Queens Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ridgeway v. St. John's Queens Hospital

199 A.D.2d 490, 606 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12347

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 490 (Ridgeway v. St. John's Queens Hospital) 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

Ridgeway v. St. John's Queens Hospital, 199 A.D.2d 490, 606 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Aníbal Casado appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated May 15, 1991, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the appellant’s contentions that the plaintiff failed to deliver the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion at his dwelling place (see, CPLR 308 [2]; Sutro Co. v Valenzuela, 113 AD2d 793). Pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), a summons mailed to the defendant’s actual place of business must not indicate "by return address or [491]*491otherwise, that the communication is from an attorney”. However, in this case, the summons and complaint was mailed to the appellant’s last known residence rather than to his actual place of business. Thus, the fact that the envelope bore the return address of the plaintiffs attorney did not render the mailing defective (see, CPLR 308 [2]; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C308:2, at 306; cf., Broomes-Simon v Klebanow, 160 AD2d 973). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, 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 medical malpractice, the defendant Aníbal Casado appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated May 15, 1991, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the appellant’s contentions that the plaintiff failed to deliver the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion at his dwelling place (see, CPLR 308 [2]; Sutro Co. v Valenzuela, 113 AD2d 793). Pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), a summons mailed to the defendant’s actual place of business must not indicate "by return address or [491]*491otherwise, that the communication is from an attorney”. However, in this case, the summons and complaint was mailed to the appellant’s last known residence rather than to his actual place of business. Thus, the fact that the envelope bore the return address of the plaintiffs attorney did not render the mailing defective (see, CPLR 308 [2]; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C308:2, at 306; cf., Broomes-Simon v Klebanow, 160 AD2d 973). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 490, 606 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridgeway-v-st-johns-queens-hospital-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack