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 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 […]