From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hapoalim v. Kotten Machine Co. of Brooklyn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 21, 1987
130 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

May 21, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.).


Plaintiff began this action by a notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint returnable on December 30, 1980. Service was made only upon Kotten Machine Co. of Brooklyn, Inc., by serving the Secretary of State. By a decision dated January 15, 1981, the motion court granted the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and directed the parties to settle an order. No order has been settled to date.

The decision of January 15, 1981 was not binding upon the individual defendant because, at that time, he had not been served. According to an affidavit of service of William Flood, sworn to on March 26, 1981, the individual defendant was served with a summons and a "Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint, Affidavit Exhibits" on March 25, 1981. By an affidavit sworn to on April 15, 1981, defendant Gadman asserted that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him in that no summons had ever been served upon him personally or mailed to his residence or affixed to his door. Defendant has maintained this position during the course of several motions, including the motion for judgment which led to this appeal.

Because of the conflict as to whether service was properly made, the defendant was entitled to a traverse hearing. Accordingly, we remand for that purpose.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Hapoalim v. Kotten Machine Co. of Brooklyn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 21, 1987
130 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Hapoalim v. Kotten Machine Co. of Brooklyn

Case Details

Full title:BANK HAPOALIM, B.M., Respondent, v. KOTTEN MACHINE CO. OF BROOKLYN, INC.…

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

Date published: May 21, 1987

Citations

130 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Lugo v. Santiago

Moreover, we find no merit to the defendant's contention that the plaintiff's process server failed to…

Frankel v. Schilling

Further, the defendant has averred that the described appearance of the person identified as his wife by the…