finding that three attempts at service at different times of day was sufficient to establish due diligence
Summary of this case from Goetz v. Synthesys Technologies, Inc.January 14, 1992
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about May 29, 1991, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by William J. Davis, J., without costs or disbursements. No opinion.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.
finding that three attempts at service at different times of day was sufficient to establish due diligence
Summary of this case from Goetz v. Synthesys Technologies, Inc.In Hochhauser v. Bunzeroth, 578 N.Y.S.2d 170 (App.Div. 1st Dep't 1992), it ruled that three attempts to serve defendant at home at various times when defendant would reasonably be expected to be found were sufficient to establish "due diligence" so as to permit the use of affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR § 308, making no reference to any additional requirement of showing attempted service at defendant's place of business.
Summary of this case from Sartor v. Utica Taxi Center Inc.Full title:OSKANA STASYSZYN, Appellant, v. SUTTON EAST ASSOCIATES et al.…
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Jan 14, 1992
Taking its cue from the Court of Appeals's statement in Barnes, the First Department has adopted a more…
Sartor v. Utica Taxi Center, Inc.Several cases, not cited by Mesamours, have applied the contrary doctrine, ironically citing First Department…