From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bukoff v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 15, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, with a direction that the proceeding be transferred to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Proper service of an order to show cause dated September 8, 1986, was necessary to acquire personal jurisdiction over the appellant, the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (hereinafter MABSTOA) (see, CPLR 403 [d]; see generally, 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 403.04). MABSTOA's attorney produced documentary proof to support her claim that this order to show cause was not received at MABSTOA's office at 370 Jay Street. As in any action or proceeding, where, as here, such evidence of non-receipt creates an issue of fact as to the service of process, a hearing is required (see, Matter of St. Christopher-Ottilie, 169 A.D.2d 690; Cadin Contr. v. Rich Agency, 158 A.D.2d 442; Frankel v. Schilling, 149 A.D.2d 657).

It is also clear that the proceeding should have been immediately transferred to New York County. Since the underlying accident occurred in New York County, and since the New York City Transit Authority is among the parties named as a defendant in the petitioners' action, New York County is the only proper venue, both for the trial of the action (see, CPLR 505 [b]) and for any proceeding to file a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e).

The proceeding is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, and should thereupon be transferred to the Supreme Court, New York County, for a determination, after a hearing to be held in the Supreme Court, New York County, as to whether or not process was properly served upon MABSTOA. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bukoff v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Bukoff v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:LILLIAN BUKOFF et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et…

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 898

Citing Cases

Carter v. The City of New York

In light of this procedural infirmity, the Court concludes that the proper course is to transfer the instant…

Davidov v. Searles

Accordingly, in the special circumstances of this case, the proper venue for all three actions is in Queens…