From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olscamp v. Fasciano

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2014
118 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-06-20

Joseph OLSCAMP, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Janeanne E. FASCIANO, Defendant, and C.M. Mendetta, Jr., Defendant–Respondent.

Walsh, Roberts & Grace, Buffalo (Joseph H. Emminger, Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak LLP, Buffalo (Nancy A. Long of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.



Walsh, Roberts & Grace, Buffalo (Joseph H. Emminger, Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak LLP, Buffalo (Nancy A. Long of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff appeals from an order that granted the motion of C.M. Mendetta, Jr. (defendant) to dismiss the complaint against him pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) based on improper service of the summons and complaint. We affirm. We reject plaintiff's contention that the “nail and mail” service upon defendant's last known address was proper. That method of service “requires that the summons be affixed to the door of the defendant's ‘actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode’ ” ( Kalamadeen v. Singh, 63 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 882 N.Y.S.2d 437, quoting CPLR 308[4] ). “Although the required subsequent mailing to the defendant's last known residence will suffice for the second element of service under CPLR 308(4), affixing process to the door of the defendant's last known residence will not be sufficient to meet the first element of [CPLR 308(4) ]” ( id.; see Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 239, 422 N.Y.S.2d 356, 397 N.E.2d 1161). We reject plaintiff's further contention that defendant should be estopped from raising defective service as a defense inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record that defendant “engage[d] in conduct calculated to prevent plaintiff from learning his new address” ( Seiler v. Ricci's Towing Servs., 227 A.D.2d 920, 921, 643 N.Y.S.2d 789;see Marsh v. Phillips, 167 A.D.2d 905, 905–906, 562 N.Y.S.2d 273).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.


Summaries of

Olscamp v. Fasciano

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2014
118 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Olscamp v. Fasciano

Case Details

Full title:Joseph OLSCAMP, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Janeanne E. FASCIANO, Defendant…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 20, 2014

Citations

118 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
118 A.D.3d 1472
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4648

Citing Cases

Desselle v. Hills

We reject plaintiff's further contention that defendants should be estopped from challenging the improper…

Castillo-Florez v. Charlecius

fendants ordinarily have no affirmative duty to keep those who might sue them abreast of their whereabouts,’…