Opinion
No. 16395 Index No. 101673/19 Case No. 2021-04584
10-11-2022
Jeannine M. Cieri, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Yonah Halton, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Jeannine M. Cieri and Sophia M. Cieri, appellants pro se. Todd Rothenberg, New Rochelle, for Yonah Halton, respondent. Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for Yaaron LLC, respondent.
Jeannine M. Cieri and Sophia M. Cieri, appellants pro se.
Todd Rothenberg, New Rochelle, for Yonah Halton, respondent.
Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for Yaaron LLC, respondent.
Before: Gische, J.P., Kern, Gesmer, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered May 5, 2021, which denied plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against defendants for failure to answer the complaint and granted defendants' cross motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Yonah Halton, as service of process upon him was effectuated in violation of General Business Law (GBL) § 13 (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lilker, 153 A.D.3d 1243, 1244 [2d Dept 2017]). Service was effected during the Jewish Sabbath, after sundown on a Friday (see Hirsch v Ben Zvi, 184 Misc.2d 946, 947 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2000]), and Halton met his burden of demonstrating malicious intent (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, 153 A.D.3d at 1245; Matter of Kushner, 200 A.D.2d 1, 2 [1st Dept 1994], appeal dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 856 [1995]). Plaintiffs failed to rebut Halton's showing of malice.
Personal jurisdiction was also lacking as to defendant Yaaron LLC. Even assuming Halton was authorized to accept service on its behalf (see CPLR 311-a [a]), service was in violation of GBL § 13.
In view of the foregoing, we need not consider the parties' remaining arguments.