From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenberg v. Haddad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 27, 1994
208 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 27, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.).


The Supreme Court properly rejected defendant's attempt to vacate her default. Defendant failed to raise before that court most of the arguments that she is advancing now and she is, therefore, precluded from maintaining those arguments for the first time on appeal (Rejent v. Liberation Publs., 197 A.D.2d 240, 245). Nor is there merit to any of her contentions. Moreover, apart from the omission of any showing of a meritorious defense in defendant's moving papers, the record contains documentary evidence that communications directed to defendant at the Kew Gardens address, including the original summons and complaint, were received by her. In any event, service that is left with a doorman, followed by a mailing, is valid where access to the building is prohibited (see, Costine v St. Vincent's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 173 A.D.2d 422).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Rosenberg v. Haddad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 27, 1994
208 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Rosenberg v. Haddad

Case Details

Full title:ARMAND J. ROSENBERG, Respondent, v. NADINE HADDAD, Also Known as NADINE…

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

Date published: Oct 27, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 330

Citing Cases

Sumar v. Fox

It is well settled that where a process server is denied access to the specified apartment, a doorman is a…

Shosh N.Y. LLC v. 25 Park Bridgehampton, LLC

Where a process server has not been permitted access to the specified apartment or is advised that the…