You are here: / / Defense of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Is Not Waived by Making a Motion...
,

Defense of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Is Not Waived by Making a Motion to Dismiss on that Ground/Process Server’s Testimony About Attempts to Locate Defendant Lacked Credibility

The Second Department determined the defendant did not waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by submitting a motion to dismiss on that ground.  The court further determined that Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint based upon the process server’s lack of credibility about his attempts to locate the defendant:

A defendant may waive the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss … . A defendant may also waive lack of personal jurisdiction by entering into a stipulation of settlement of the action … . Additionally, a defendant may waive lack of personal jurisdiction by making payments pursuant to a judgment or wage garnishment for a substantial period of time …  However, where the defendant’s only participation in the action is the submission of a motion to vacate a default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is not waived … . * * *

Service of process pursuant to the affix-and-mail provisions of CPLR 308(4) is only permitted where service by personal delivery under CPLR 308(1) or by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion and a subsequent mailing pursuant to CPLR 308(2) “cannot be made with due diligence” (CPLR 308[4]). ” For the purpose of satisfying the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4), it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment'” … . The process server’s testimony that he inquired as to the defendant’s whereabouts from a neighbor was not credible, since he was unable to provide any description of the neighbor—even a description of the neighbor’s sex. The affidavit of service referred to the “person spoken to,” but provided no further description, although spaces were provided to insert the person’s sex, skin color, hair color, approximate age, height, and weight.

The determination of the hearing court as to the credibility of the process server should not be disturbed since the hearing court had the advantage of seeing and listening to that witness. Cadlerock Joint Venture LP v Kierstedt, 2014 NY Slip Op 05147, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE STOP OF THE TAXI IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ALL OFFENSES BASED UPON A PROMISE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES, ALL CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING ‘A MAN WITH A GUN’ AND DESCRIBING THE MAN’S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PORTION OF DETECTIVE’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE DISCOVERABLE; DEPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF UNEVEN SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WERE PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Trial Judge’s Violation of CPL 310.30 in Responding to Jury Note Constituted Reversible “Mode of Proceedings” Error
A STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF NEW COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAIVED THE PROTECTION OF THE STAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF STANDING PURSUANT TO A MERGER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

Precedent Precluded Denial of Benefits Subsequent Action Which Included Claims Which Could Have Been Raised in the...