Walkes v. Benoit

257 A.D.2d 508, 684 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 714
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 26, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 508 (Walkes v. Benoit) 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
Walkes v. Benoit, 257 A.D.2d 508, 684 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered April 2, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and inquest, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion default is granted, and the matter is remitted for inquest on the question of damages.

In this action by a passenger against the driver of a tour bus involved in an accident in New Jersey, the process server submitted an affidavit attesting to service of the summons and complaint by affixing and mailing at defendant’s residence after duly diligent efforts at personal service (CPLR 308 [4]). A year later, in response to plaintiffs motion for default judgment, defendant countered that he was never personally served. But this denial was offered only in the form of an affirmation by his attorney and an affidavit from his employer’s insurer, neither of whom had personal knowledge as to whether or not he had been personally served. Essentially, their argument was that defendant routinely forwarded all such papers to his employer and the latter’s insurer, and that no such transfer of paperwork had taken place in this instance.

In order to rebut an affidavit of service and test the process at a traverse hearing, a defendant must personally contest the service on motion (see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Montgomery, 245 AD2d 150). The absence of such personal attestation further highlights defendant’s failure to offer a meritorious defense and an excuse for not serving a timely answer (Keita v Ortega, 240 AD2d 156). Default judgment is warranted. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

PV Holding Corp. v. Fernandez
2024 NY Slip Op 02509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Margouleff v. Beck
S.D. New York, 2019
Gray-Joseph v. Shuhai Liu
90 A.D.3d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Fung
349 F. Supp. 2d 613 (E.D. New York, 2004)
Omansky v. Gurland
4 A.D.3d 104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ananda Capital Partners, Inc. v. Stav Electrical Systems (1994) Ltd.
301 A.D.2d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Puco v. DeFeo
296 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Singh v. Friedson
288 A.D.2d 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Simonds v. Grobman
277 A.D.2d 369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 A.D.2d 508, 684 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walkes-v-benoit-nyappdiv-1999.