Rosenberg v. Haddad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Haddad

208 A.D.2d 468, 617 N.Y.S.2d 330

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 468 (Rosenberg v. Haddad) 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

Rosenberg v. Haddad, 208 A.D.2d 468, 617 N.Y.S.2d 330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered December 29,1993, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction and vacate her default in appearing, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly rejected defendant’s attempt to vacate her default. Defendant failed to raise before that court most of the arguments that she is advancing now and she is, therefore, precluded from maintaining those arguments for the first time on appeal (Rejent v Liberation Publs., 197 AD2d 240, 245). Nor is there merit to any of her contentions. Moreover, apart from the omission of any showing of a meritorious defense in defendant’s moving papers, the record contains documentary evidence that communications directed to [469]*469defendant at the Kew Gardens address, including the original summons and complaint, were received by her. In any event, service that is left with a doorman, followed by a mailing, is valid where access to the building is prohibited (see, Costine v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 173 AD2d 422). Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered December 29,1993, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction and vacate her default in appearing, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly rejected defendant’s attempt to vacate her default. Defendant failed to raise before that court most of the arguments that she is advancing now and she is, therefore, precluded from maintaining those arguments for the first time on appeal (Rejent v Liberation Publs., 197 AD2d 240, 245). Nor is there merit to any of her contentions. Moreover, apart from the omission of any showing of a meritorious defense in defendant’s moving papers, the record contains documentary evidence that communications directed to [469]*469defendant at the Kew Gardens address, including the original summons and complaint, were received by her. In any event, service that is left with a doorman, followed by a mailing, is valid where access to the building is prohibited (see, Costine v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 173 AD2d 422). Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 468, 617 N.Y.S.2d 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-haddad-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack