From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodwin v. Hoppenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1982
88 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

June 7, 1982


In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated May 28, 1981 which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) the judgment entered thereon on June 3, 1981. Appeal from the order, dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed. Defendant is awarded one bill of costs. Since the credible evidence established that the "mailing" of process to the defendant in purported compliance with CPLR 308 (subd 4) was not made, as required, to his "last known residence", the complaint was properly dismissed (see Pober v. Boulevard Hosp., 72 A.D.2d 600; see, also, Sparacino v. Winner, 82 A.D.2d 753). Damiani, J.P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Goodwin v. Hoppenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1982
88 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Goodwin v. Hoppenfeld

Case Details

Full title:FLOYD GOODWIN, Appellant, v. STANLEY HOPPENFELD, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 7, 1982

Citations

88 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Licausi v. Suffolk Cnty.

However, there is no proof of the statutory-required follow-up mailing to Officer Bogliole. In fact, Deputy…