Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982

Mariano v. Steinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 15, 1982

87 A.D.2d 606; 448 N.Y.S.2d 47; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15898

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Manfredonia v. Scivolette (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Mendez v. Kyung Yoo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Pierre v. Pierre (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Van Wert v. Black & Decker, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
City & Suburban Federal Savings Bank v. Frank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Miller v. Roche (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Karanja v. Karanja (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Best v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Le Fevre v. Cole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Watt v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.), dated March 9, 1981, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for the making of a new determination in accordance herewith on the present record. Special Term apparently was under the impression that plaintiffs attempted service by leaving a copy of the summons with a neighbor of the defendant. According to the amended affidavit of service, however, it is clear that plaintiffs áre alleging substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308 (subd 4). The fact that the original affidavit of service was improperly executed is not a jurisdictional defect, if in fact service was properly made (see Mrwik v Mrwik, 49 AD2d 750). The court must determine whether the efforts of the process server constituted due diligence under CPLR 308 (subds 1, 2) and, if so, whether service was properly effected under subdivision 4 (cf. Stylianou v Tsourides, 73 AD2d 642). Having seen and heard the witnesses at the hearing, Special Term is in the best position to answer these questions (see Mrwik v Mrwik, supra; cf. Barnes v City of New York, 51 NY2d 906). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.