You are here: / / Court Should Have Allowed Service of an Order to Show Cause by Means Other...

Court Should Have Allowed Service of an Order to Show Cause by Means Other than Personal Delivery after Plaintiff Failed to Effect Personal Delivery Despite Due Diligence

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an order to show cause by means other than personal delivery should have been granted.  The plaintiff had been unable to effect personal delivery despite due diligence:

As a general matter, an order to show cause must be served at a time and in the manner specified therein (see CPLR 403[d]; 2214[d]…). However, under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for leave to serve … by a method of personal service pursuant to CPLR 308 other than personal delivery. The plaintiff demonstrated that personal delivery … pursuant to CPLR 308(1), as required by the order to show cause, could not be effected despite the exercise of due diligence. Moreover, service pursuant to the other means set forth in CPLR 308 constitutes personal service, and is sufficient here for notice of an application to punish for contempt … . Koyachman v Paige Mgt & Consulting LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op -7130, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE RULINGS IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS CASE, HEARINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT). ​
A POLICE CAR RESPONDING AN EMERGENCY CALL SWERVED INTO A TURN LANE TO PASS A CAR AND STRUCK A SKATEBOARDER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS” (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING SESSION WHEN HE WAS BITTEN BY A POLICE DOG; THE TRAINING WAS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION; THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY MUST HAVE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY TO BE LIABLE, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE UNIQUE FACTS OF THIS MED MAL TRIAL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SHIFT LIABILITY TO PHYSICIANS WHO HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE ALLEGED MISPRESENTATION IN PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR CAR INSURANCE, I.E., THAT SHE LIVED IN NEW ROCHELLE AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE WHEN IN FACT SHE LIVED IN BROOKLYN AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE, WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN “MATERIAL” AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE INSURER HAD DENIED COVERAGE BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION; THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MAILING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE IS A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRING DENIAL OF THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS.
“EXHAUSTION OF REMEMDIES” IS NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED BEFORE AN AGENCY ACTION CAN BE CHALLENGED IN COURT; HERE THE CHALLENGE INVOLVED A PURE QUESTION OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Unexcused Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders Warranted Striking of the... Unambiguous Terms of a Release Must Be Enforced—Extrinsic Evidence of...