Rokicki v. 24 Hour Courier Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rokicki v. 24 Hour Courier Service, Inc.

282 A.D.2d 664, 723 N.Y.S.2d 411, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 664 (Rokicki v. 24 Hour Courier Service, Inc.) 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

Rokicki v. 24 Hour Courier Service, Inc., 282 A.D.2d 664, 723 N.Y.S.2d 411, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In [665]*665an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant 24 Hour Courier Service, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated January 20, 2000, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established that, under the circumstances, the plaintiffs’ process server acted reasonably and with due diligence, and that service was effected in a manner calculated to give the.appellant fair notice (see, CPLR 311 [a] [1]; Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265; Eastman Kodak Co. v Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, 195 AD2d 591; Peck v Church, 160 AD2d 854). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In [665]*665an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant 24 Hour Courier Service, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated January 20, 2000, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established that, under the circumstances, the plaintiffs’ process server acted reasonably and with due diligence, and that service was effected in a manner calculated to give the.appellant fair notice (see, CPLR 311 [a] [1]; Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265; Eastman Kodak Co. v Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, 195 AD2d 591; Peck v Church, 160 AD2d 854). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 664, 723 N.Y.S.2d 411, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rokicki-v-24-hour-courier-service-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack