You are here: / / DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4)...

DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action on the ground that efforts to serve the defendant were inadequate pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). The Second Department found the efforts to serve defendant met the due diligence standard:

​

Here, the affidavit of the process server demonstrated that three visits were made to the homeowner’s residence, each on different days and at different times of the day. The process server also described in detail his unsuccessful attempt to obtain an employment address for the homeowner, including interviewing a neighbor. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improperly concluded that the due diligence requirement was not satisfied  … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Cepeda, 2017 NY Slip Op 07767, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS  (DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 308 (4)  (DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT))/DUE DILIGENCE (SERVICE OF PROCESS,  DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Court Has the Discretion to Deny a Motion to Change Venue Where the Statutory Time-Limits for the Demand and Motion Are Not Met—Discretion Not Abused Here
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING BECAUSE ESSENTIAL FACTS WERE IN DISPUTE (SECOND DEPT).
RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS MADE AWARE OF A JUROR’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DELIBERATIONS AND THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY; THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DNA TESTING OF GUM DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WHILE IN CUSTODY WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS A NONMEMBER PURCHASER OF A MEMBER’S INTEREST IN THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BRING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE MADE ANYTIME AFTER ISSUE IS JOINED; A JUDGE CANNOT REQUIRE THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE BEFORE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION CAN BE MADE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED... SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERING A RENEWAL JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED...