Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Johnson v. Waters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 19, 2002

291 A.D.2d 481; 738 N.Y.S.2d 369; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1865

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Faculty Practice Plan of Long Island Jewish Medical Center v. Guarneri (Civil Court of the City of New York 2006)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Szajna (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
State v. Mappa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Sartor v. Utica Taxi Center, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Gewirtz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
The Matter of Frank Mestecky v. City of New York (N.Y. 2017)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cherot (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cherot (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Serraro v. Staropoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Akler v. Chisena (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
County of Nassau v. Gallagher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Lemberger v. Khan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Dolan v. Linnen (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)

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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated April 20, 1998, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon his failure to timely appear or answer.

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

A process server made three attempts to serve the defendant at his residence. One of those attempts was during normal working hours, one on Wednesday evening, and one a Saturday morning. When the process server was unable to effectuate personal service, she affixed a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant’s apartment and mailed another copy to the same address pursuant to CPLR 308 (4).

The three attempts to make service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant at his residence at different times and on different days, including a Saturday, were sufficient to constitute due diligence (see, Matos v Knibbs, 186 AD2d 725). Since there was no indication that he worked on Saturdays, there was no showing of any other reasonable means whereby the chances of successful personal service could have been significantly increased (see, Matos v Knibbs, supra).

Accordingly, the process server properly resorted to service of process pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). Since the defendant failed to timely appear or interpose an answer, he is in default and the plaintiffs motion should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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