From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gantman v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 1994
209 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in finding that the plaintiff satisfied the "due diligence" requirement of CPLR 308 (4) and in sustaining the "nail and mail" service upon the defendant. The process server made three attempts to personally serve the defendant at his residence. Those attempts occurred on weekdays at the hours of 10:50 A.M., 4:30 P.M., and 6:36 P.M. These attempts, which were made during normal business hours or at times when it could reasonably have been expected that the defendant was in transit to or from his place of employment, were insufficient, as a matter of law, to satisfy the "due diligence" requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see, Serrano v. Pape, 188 A.D.2d 647; Magalios v Benjamin, 160 A.D.2d 773; Kaszovitz v. Weiszman, 110 A.D.2d 117, 120). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gantman v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 1994
209 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Gantman v. Cohen

Case Details

Full title:ROZA GANTMAN et al., Respondents, v. HINDY COHEN, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 7, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 100

Citing Cases

State Higher Education Servs. Corp. v. Cacia

In finding that three attempts at personal service was insufficient, this Court observed that due to the…

Powell v. Anderson

After hearing the evidence, the Court finds that the two attempts at personal service prior to the…