You are here: / / DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ADDRESS AT WHICH SERVICE...

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ADDRESS AT WHICH SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS ATTEMPTED WAS DEFENDANT’S ACTUAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE MAY NOT BE AMENDED TO CURE AN ERRONEOUS ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s affidavit demonstrated that the address at which service of process was made was not his business address and the affidavit of service could not be amended to cure the address-error:

… [A]n affidavit submitted by [defendant] Harooni … was sufficient to demonstrate that the address where service was alleged to have been effected in the affidavit of service … , was not in fact the address of Harooni’s ‘actual place of business’ (CPLR 308[2] …). … Pursuant to CPLR 305(c), a court, ‘[a]t any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, . . . may allow any . . . proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons is issued is not prejudiced’ … . An ‘erroneous address’ contained in an affidavit of service affects a defendant’s substantial right to notice of the proceeding against him or her, and may not be corrected by an amendment …”. Jampolskaya v Ilona Genis, MD, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 03104, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: An affidavit of service may be amended, but not to correct the wrong address.

 

You might also like
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.
Advertising in New York and an Interactive Website Not Enough to Exercise Long-Arm Jurisdiction
WHERE THERE ARE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND MUST RULE BEFORE ANY RELATED ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO LIMIT THE REACH OF OVERLY BROAD RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT FINDING.
THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE OR IGNORE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VILLAGE ZONING CODE; THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE SITE PLAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED (SECOND DEPT). ​
INSTALLING A TV ON A WALL IS NOT AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
WIFE ENTITLED TO SHARE OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY WHICH WAS COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL FUNDS, WIFE ALSO ENTITLED TO SHARE OF APPRECIATION OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY.

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 NEGLIGENT ROADWAY DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD... DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST...