From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniels v. Farrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1995
216 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 26, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant is estopped from contesting the validity of service of process at the address on his driver's license, which he gave to the plaintiff Betty Daniels at the scene of the accident (see, Lavery v. Lopez, 131 A.D.2d 820; Treutlein v Gutierrez, 129 A.D.2d 791-792; Hill v. Jones, 113 A.D.2d 874).

Furthermore, the defendant did not timely raise before the Supreme Court his contention that the plaintiffs failed to attempt to serve him pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) or (2) before serving him pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). Thus, the defendant's contention that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence is unpreserved for appellate review. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Daniels v. Farrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1995
216 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Daniels v. Farrell

Case Details

Full title:BETTY DANIELS et al., Respondents, v. DENNIS J. FARRELL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 26, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 780

Citing Cases

M. Sobol, Inc. v. Wiener

Defendant's motion was denied and this appeal ensued. While a motion to vacate a judgment based upon lack of…

Bajic v. Tweedy

On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant should be estopped from challenging the propriety of…