From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Occhiuzzi v. Occhiuzzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 11, 1985
108 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

February 11, 1985

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


Order affirmed, with costs.

The issue at the traverse hearing was whether defendant was personally served with a summons on February 21, 1981, at Kennedy Airport. The process server testified that he personally served defendant, whom he recognized from a picture with which he was provided. Defendant admitted that he was at Kennedy Airport at the relevant time, but denied being served or even seeing the process server. The conflicting testimony thus presented an issue of credibility which the court determined in favor of the plaintiff, finding that defendant had been properly served with process. Matters of credibility are best determined by the hearing court, whose decision should not be disturbed if supportable by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Altman v Wallach, 104 A.D.2d 391; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v Arrao, 100 A.D.2d 949). We hold that Special Term's findings were amply supported by the record.

We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Occhiuzzi v. Occhiuzzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 11, 1985
108 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Occhiuzzi v. Occhiuzzi

Case Details

Full title:MINERVA E. OCCHIUZZI, Respondent, v. OSVALDO OCCHIUZZI, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 11, 1985

Citations

108 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Vito M. Fosella Builders & General Contractors, Inc. v. Silver

the other hand, the process server testified at the hearing that he served the doorman on May 11, 1992, and…

Marks v. Buongiovanni

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs. The Supreme Court's finding that the appellant…