You are here: / / AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE...
,

AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDED BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL-AND-MAIL SERVICE; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff failed to show defendant Lopez was properly served at the traverse hearing. The default judgment against Lopez was vacated. The decisions provides a rare opportunity to look inside a traverse hearing:

During the traverse hearing, plaintiff’s process server testified that he posted the summons and complaint on the door of the subject premises located at 713 Prospect Avenue in the Bronx (the premises), after making four attempts to serve Lopez there. However, the process server also testified that while he was attempting to personally serve Lopez at the premises, which his employer had represented was her residence, someone at the premises told him Lopez did not live there. This testimony established that the nail-and-mail service of process on Lopez was insufficient because plaintiff’s process server did not first comply with the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) … . Upon obtaining information that Lopez did not reside at the premises, due diligence required the process server to investigate her whereabouts on the date of service and whether the service address was actually her dwelling place or usual place of abode before resorting to the alternative method of serving her with the summons and complaint by nail-and-mail service … . There is no evidence that the process server did so, and the affidavit of service simply states that the process server served Lopez at her “dwelling place/usual place of abode.” Casanova v Lopez, 2024 NY Slip Op 01269, Frist Dept 3-12-24

Practice Point: Here the process server was told defendant did not reside at the premises but he did not exercise due diligence (CPLR 308(4)) to find out where defendant did reside before resorting to nail-and-mail service. The default judgment against defendant was vacated.

 

You might also like
REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED “ALTERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
TENANT WAS PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT BECAUSE THE TENANT HAD ALREADY STOPPED PAYING RENT WHEN IT VACATED THE PREMISES (FIRST DEPT).
CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE STATED, ELEMENTS DESCRIBED.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING PETITIONER’S INJURIES, THE FACTS SUPPORTING THE CITY’S NEGLIGENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION WITH A MODICUM OF EFFORT, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE RELATING TO THE DELAY, PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY WAS NOT FATAL (FIRST DEPT).
Stipulation of Forfeiture of a Sum of Money Was Part of the Judgment of Conviction and Therefore Was Reviewable on Appeal from the Judgment of Conviction
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WITH RIGHT OF ENTRY TO INSPECT OR REPAIR DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO REPAIR THE DEFECT AT ISSUE, DEFECT WAS NOT STRUCTURAL AND DID NOT VIOLATE A STATUTORY SAFETY PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).
THE COURT WAS TROUBLED BY NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIAL AND HEARINGS’ (OATH’S) REQUIREMENT THAT PETITIONER PAY THE ORDERED RESTITUTION OF OVER $234,000 BEFORE PETITIONER COULD APPEAL THE DETERMINATION; THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE DECIDED (FIRST 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

THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF... PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER...