Schorr v. Persaud

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schorr v. Persaud

51 A.D.3d 519, 858 N.Y.S.2d 140

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

DecidedMay 15, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 519 (Schorr v. Persaud) 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

Schorr v. Persaud, 51 A.D.3d 519, 858 N.Y.S.2d 140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered September 13, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs satisfied their burden of establishing personal juris[520]*520diction over defendant by service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). The process server testified at the traverse hearing that he delivered the summons with notice to a security guard at defendant’s place of business who agreed to accept the documents for defendant (see Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman v New York Turkey Corp., 111 AD2d 93 [1985]), and also mailed a copy to the place of employment. On this record, there is no basis for disturbing the court’s findings as to the process server’s credibility (see Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727 [1982]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered September 13, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs satisfied their burden of establishing personal juris[520]*520diction over defendant by service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). The process server testified at the traverse hearing that he delivered the summons with notice to a security guard at defendant’s place of business who agreed to accept the documents for defendant (see Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman v New York Turkey Corp., 111 AD2d 93 [1985]), and also mailed a copy to the place of employment. On this record, there is no basis for disturbing the court’s findings as to the process server’s credibility (see Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727 [1982]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 519, 858 N.Y.S.2d 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schorr-v-persaud-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack