Sosa v. Cumberland Swan, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sosa v. Cumberland Swan, Inc.

210 A.D.2d 156, 621 N.Y.S.2d 7

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 156 (Sosa v. Cumberland Swan, 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

Sosa v. Cumberland Swan, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 156, 621 N.Y.S.2d 7 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, [157]*157Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about March 23, 1993, which granted individual defendant Mason’s motion for reargument of a previous motion granting default, against him, and upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that service pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §253 (2) on defendant, Donald S. Mason, a Tennessee resident, was improper since plaintiff complied with the statute by serving the Secretary of State and sending notice of such service and a copy of the summons with notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to defendant, and upon return of same to plaintiff by the Post Office as unclaimed, plaintiff had posted an additional copy by ordinary mail, and then filed with the Clerk of the Court the original envelope bearing the Post Office notations as returned, and an affidavit of compliance pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253 (2).

Nor is there any merit to defendant’s argument that vacatur is warranted under CPLR 317, since he failed to raise this issue before the IAS Court, and is therefore precluded from raising it on appeal. We have considered defendant’s other arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, [157]*157Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about March 23, 1993, which granted individual defendant Mason’s motion for reargument of a previous motion granting default, against him, and upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that service pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §253 (2) on defendant, Donald S. Mason, a Tennessee resident, was improper since plaintiff complied with the statute by serving the Secretary of State and sending notice of such service and a copy of the summons with notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to defendant, and upon return of same to plaintiff by the Post Office as unclaimed, plaintiff had posted an additional copy by ordinary mail, and then filed with the Clerk of the Court the original envelope bearing the Post Office notations as returned, and an affidavit of compliance pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253 (2).

Nor is there any merit to defendant’s argument that vacatur is warranted under CPLR 317, since he failed to raise this issue before the IAS Court, and is therefore precluded from raising it on appeal. We have considered defendant’s other arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 156, 621 N.Y.S.2d 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sosa-v-cumberland-swan-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack