You are here: / / Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log...

Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log Book

The Second Department explained that, under the relevant provisions of the General Business Law, process servers outside the City of New York are not required to keep a “log book” for recording service:

General Business Law § 89-u, which applies to process servers outside of the City of New York, requires process servers to “maintain a legible record of all service made by him [or her] as prescribed in this section” (General Business Law § 89-u[1]). Unlike General Business Law § 89-cc(1), which is applicable in the City of New York, General Business Law § 89-u, which is applicable outside the City of New York, does not expressly require that the “legible record” be “kept in chronological order in a bound, paginated volume” (General Business Law § 89-cc[1]), i.e., a log book. “Pursuant to the maxim of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted and excluded” … . Since the Legislature did not include a log book requirement for process servers in counties outside of the City of New York, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the process server in Nassau County was required to maintain such log book. Moret Partnership v Spickerman, 2015 NY Slip Op 01248, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

You might also like
Court’s Failure to Share Entire Contents of Note from Jury Constituted a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal
Doctrine of Equitable Mootness for Bankruptcy Ruling ​
THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF AND/OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A PUDDLE OF LIQUID) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Intoxication Jury Instruction Was Warranted, Conviction Reversed
DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records
Permit Allowing the Killing of 62 Deer Properly Issued/Exception to the Mootness Doctrine Applied
HERE THE CLAIMANT WAS DEEMED DISABLED BY AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE (CANCER) CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS; THE EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPENSATION IS THE LAST EMPLOYER WHERE THE NATURE OF THE WORK EXPOSED CLAIMANT TO ASBESTOS, NOT NECESSARILY THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME THE CANCER WAS DIAGNOSED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Telephone-Communication Buy-Sell Arrangements Sufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction/Forum... Appeal Should Not Have Been Dismissed as Moot Because the Underlying Order of...