From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foster v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 2000
269 A.D.2d 152 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 9, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1998, denying defendant Celestine R. Jordan's motion to vacate a prior order, dated April 7, 1998, which granted a default judgment against her and set the matter down for inquest, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion granted and the default judgment vacated on condition that Jordan pay plaintiff $500 in costs within 30 days of the date of this order. If said condition is not met, the order is affirmed. Said defendant is directed to answer the complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.

B. Jennifer Jaffee, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

John M. Dillon, for Defendant-Appellant.

SULLIVAN, J.P., WILLIAMS, RUBIN, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


This action arises out of an alleged April 20, 1995 dog-bite incident that occurred "near and/or about" premises k/a 1435 Needham Avenue in the Bronx. Allegedly, Donovan Cunningham, a co-defendant who owned and controlled the dog, resided at premises k/a 1426 Needham Avenue, owned by defendant Jordan.

In support of the motion to vacate her default, defendant Jordan denied any knowledge of Cunningham or a dog, "vicious" or otherwise, owned by him and being harbored in the 1426 Needham Avenue premises. Jordan also argues that plaintiff never obtained personal jurisdiction over her because the service employed here — [by] delivery of the summons and complaint to her daughter, "a person of suitable age and discretion", at 4231 Boyd Avenue, Bronx — failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 308(2) since Jordan was, at the time, a resident of Virginia, where she had moved prior to May 15, 1997, the day of the alleged service. Jordan also stated that her daughter denied having ever been served. No affidavit attesting to that fact, however, was submitted by the daughter. The IAS court, rejecting Jordan's jurisdictional claims as conclusory, found that Jordan was properly served pursuant toCPLR 308(2) at the Boyd Avenue address and that there was no reasonable excuse for her failure to interpose a timely answer. We agree that the jurisdictional claim is conclusory and does not warrant a hearing. Since this is a case of questionable liability, we believe that, in the circumstances, Jordan should be permitted to interpose an answer, as indicated.

Review of the record indicates that at the time of service Jordan owned the 4231 Boyd Avenue premises, had a valid New York driver's license listing, as her residence, that address, and that her utility bills for the 1426 Needham Avenue premises were forwarded to the Boyd Avenue address. Significantly absent is an affidavit from Jordan's daughter denying service of process on her or stating that the 4231 Boyd Avenue address was not Jordan's residence. Jordan's own self-serving conclusory statements and hearsay will not suffice.

Jordan has, however, stated meritorious defenses, i.e., that she had no knowledge that a dog was harbored on her premises, that there is no allegation that the dog ever exhibited any vicious propensities (see, Strunk v. Zoltanski, 62 N.Y.2d 572, 575; Carter v. Metro North Assocs., 255 A.D.2d 251) and that she is not liable to passersby injured away from her premises (see, Shen v. Kornienko, 253 A.D.2d 396). In addition, service upon Jordan was by other than personal service. Since we credit Jordan's uncontradicted statement that her first notice of this matter was when she received in the mail a copy of plaintiffs' notice of motion and motion for a default judgment, she has thus established that she did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend (CPLR 317 ). This, coupled with the meritorious defenses, entitles Jordan, pursuant to CPLR 317, to vacatur of the default judgment upon satisfaction of the condition imposed. (See, Larman v. Russel, 240 A.D.2d 473, 474; see also,Union Indem. Ins. Co. v. 10-01 50th Ave. Realty Corp., 102 A.D.2d 727.)

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Foster v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 2000
269 A.D.2d 152 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Foster v. Jordan

Case Details

Full title:MOSES FOSTER, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CELESTINE R…

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

Date published: Feb 9, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 152 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 23

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bastidas

Defendant, Bastidas, makes no claim defendant, Cabrera, was not present at the 96th Street premises on…

Sharbat v. Law Offices of Michael B. Wolk, P.C.

te of New York and [does] not plan on re-locating to another state much less another country,” that his home…