From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Werner v. Schweit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1988
138 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Summary

affirming district court's decision, after a hearing, that the "mere slipping of the papers between the screen door and the door jamb was not a proper 'affixing' as required by the statute"

Summary of this case from High Farms, LLC v. King

Opinion

March 21, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Widlitz, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the mere slipping of the papers between the screen door and the doorjamb was not a proper "affixing" as required by the statute. "The affixing of a summons to the door is to be accomplished by use of a nail, tack, tape, rubber band or some other device which will ensure a genuine adherence" (PacAmor Bearings v. Foley, 92 A.D.2d 959, 960, citing Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 74).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly vacated the default judgment on the basis that service was ineffective due to the improper "affixing". Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Werner v. Schweit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1988
138 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

affirming district court's decision, after a hearing, that the "mere slipping of the papers between the screen door and the door jamb was not a proper 'affixing' as required by the statute"

Summary of this case from High Farms, LLC v. King
Case details for

Werner v. Schweit

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM E.F. WERNER, Doing Business as MID ISLAND HOSPITAL, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Raalte v. Metz

Based upon our review of the record, we see no reason to disturb the determination of the hearing court.…

Kazdan v. Merlis

Upon the record before us, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendants were properly served…