From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevens v. Feitknecht

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 1, 1983
93 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

April 1, 1983

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kennedy, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced the instant lawsuit in accordance with the "Nail Mail" method of service (CPLR 308, subd 4). Defendant's second affirmative defense alleges lack of personal jurisdiction based on defective service. Plaintiff moved to dismiss this defense (CPLR 3211, subd [b]). Defendant's sole argument in opposition to the motion was that the affidavit of service was defective because it contained "no showing" that the address in question was defendant's actual dwelling place or last known address. This argument is insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. The affidavit of service alleges that the address is defendant's actual and last known residence and nothing more is required therein. While the affidavit of service, standing alone, might be insufficient were the facts contested (see, e.g., Jones v King, 24 A.D.2d 430), here defendant does not deny that the address was his actual and last known residence. In the absence of any question of fact, the motion to dismiss must be granted.


Summaries of

Stevens v. Feitknecht

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 1, 1983
93 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Stevens v. Feitknecht

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD L. STEVENS, Appellant, v. ALAN D. FEITKNECHT, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 1, 1983

Citations

93 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Levin v. Dorrian

In any event, defendants' bare assertion that service was not properly made is insufficient to defeat…

Bidetti v. Salter

As respects the jurisdiction defense, we point out that defendant has preserved the issue by asserting it in…