Lopez v. DePietro
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v. Palmieri (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v. Palmieri (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Goshen Mortgage, LLC v. Ezagui (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Velez v. Forcelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Florestal v. Coleman-Florestal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Washington Mutual Bank v. Holt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Washington Mutual Bank v. Holt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- HSBC Bank USA v. Hamilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- HSBC Bank USA v. Hamilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- 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)
- Campoverde v. Parejas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Campoverde v. Parejas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Chaplin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Chaplin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Dune Deck Owners Corp. v. J.J.&P. Associates Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
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
An application for an adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the hearing court, which must engage in a balanced consideration of all of the relevant factors (see Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]; Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 73 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [2010]; Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Matter of Venditto v Davis, 39 AD3d 555 [2007]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under all
In reviewing the hearing court’s determination, this Court possesses authority “which is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983])” (American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]). Here, the hearing court’s determination that the defendant was properly served was supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing (see King v Gil, 69 AD3d 678 [2010]; Federal Fin. Co. v Public Adm’r, Kings County, 47 AD3d 881, 882 [2008]; Ahrens v Chisena, 40 AD3d 787, 788 [2007]), and we discern no basis for disturbing that determination. We further note that the hearing court properly determined that the process server’s attempts to personally serve the defendant at his residence satisfied the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see State of New York v Mappa, 78 AD3d 926 [2010]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]; County of Nassau v Gallagher, 43 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2007]; Akler v Chisena, 40 AD3d 559 [2007]; Lemberger v Khan, 18 AD3d 447 [2005]). Prudenti, P.J., Eng, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.