From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gilmore v. Tindel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1994
210 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

December 1, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).


The Judicial Hearing Officer's factual findings were properly credited by the court since, as the trier of fact, he was in the best position to have evaluated the witnesses' credibility (European Am. Bank Trust Co. v H. Frenkel, Ltd., 163 A.D.2d 154, 155). Moreover, the process server's log book was properly admitted into evidence as a business record, despite his failure to recall the specific events which occurred on the date that process was served (CPLR 4518 [a]).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Gilmore v. Tindel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1994
210 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Gilmore v. Tindel

Case Details

Full title:JUNIOR GILMORE et al., Respondents, v. SEYMOUR TINDEL, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 815

Citing Cases

York v. York

Moreover, her attorney, whom she obtained "six weeks prior to that date, had not made any "motions for an…

LaSalle Bank v. Ferrari

The plaintiff failed to meet that burden. Where a process server has no independent recollection of events, a…