From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peninsula Nat. Bank v. Hill

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Nov 23, 1966
52 Misc. 2d 903 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)

Opinion

November 23, 1966

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, LEONARD L. FINZ, J.

Mullooley Mullen Jeffrey ( Bernard Jeffrey of counsel), for appellant.

Margolies Miller ( Stanley Margolies of counsel), for respondent.


Under the special facts and circumstances of this case, it was error to strike out the testimony of the process server as to his habit and custom in making substituted service (32 C.J.S., Evidence, § 581; Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 190; Matter of Kellum, 52 N.Y. 517). The service of process was not contested until approximately five and a half years after entry of judgment, at a time when the process server no longer had any recollection of the incident, and the court had found on a prior occasion that defendant's default was "deliberate, wilful and intentional" and that no good cause to vacate the judgment had been shown. In our opinion, this testimony was sufficient to remedy the defect in the affidavit of service and the motion should have been denied ( Air Conditioning Training Corp. v. Pirrote, 270 App. Div. 391; Lehman v. Mariano, 285 App. Div. 824).

The order should be unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion to set aside service of summons and complaint and to vacate judgment denied.

Concur — DI GIOVANNA, GULOTTA and BAKER, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Peninsula Nat. Bank v. Hill

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Nov 23, 1966
52 Misc. 2d 903 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
Case details for

Peninsula Nat. Bank v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:PENINSULA NATIONAL BANK OF CEDARHURST, Appellant, v. CLARENCE HILL…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Nov 23, 1966

Citations

52 Misc. 2d 903 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
277 N.Y.S.2d 162

Citing Cases

Rigie v. Goldman

We disagree. As a general rule, evidence of habitual behavior or custom is admissible as circumstantial proof…