Opinion
June 30, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The requirements of CPLR 308 (2) were complied with and in personam jurisdiction was acquired over Dr. Neuhoff within the applicable Statute of Limitations. The process server did all that he could to determine the address of Dr. Neuhoff's residence and consistently came up with an address which was, coincidentally, that of his office. There has been no showing of a different address for Dr. Neuhoff's residence, or a showing that the address used by the plaintiff could not have been that of his residence as well as his place of business. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.