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
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OUTSIDE, NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; THE APPEAL FROM AN ORDER WHICH WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A MOTION ON NOTICE MUST BE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IS A FACT-BASED DETERMINATION GENERALLY NOT SUITED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FINDINGS BY THE MOTION COURT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY UNDISPUTED FACTS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLOWING THE CORPORTE VEIL TO BE PIERCED REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.
PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY FAILED TO SUBMIT MEDICAL RECORDS REQUESTED BY THE JUDGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INQUEST; THE APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE NEGLECT OF THEIR ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT). ​
A COURT’S LIMIITED REVIEW POWERS RE AN AGENCY’S FINDINGS PURSUANT TO A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUALITY ACT ASSESSMENT CLARIFIED, SUPREME COURT’S REJECTION OF AGENCY FINDINGS REVERSED. 
Cause of Action for Fraud Based Upon Alleged Misrepresentation of Insurance Coverage Not Stated
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY FOURTH AND FIFTH DEGREE ARE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THIRD DEGREE; UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE, HOWEVER, IS NOT BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE POSSESSION OF A VEHICLE (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...