Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cherot
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Cupid (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Velez v. Forcelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. Gewirtz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Indymac Fed. Bank, FSB v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- HSBC Mtge. Corp. (USA) v. Hollender (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Sinay v. Schwartzman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Cepeda (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Florestal v. Coleman-Florestal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
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 foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Nicholas M. Cherot appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Robert J. Friedman, J.H.O.), dated April 11, 2011, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Ordered that order is affirmed, with costs.
At a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the plaintiffs process server testified that he made three attempts to personally serve the defendant Nicholas M. Cherot (hereinafter the appellant) at his residence, including one attempt on a weekday evening at 7:20 p.m., and one attempt early on a Saturday morning. After his third attempt to personally serve the appellant proved unsuccessful, the process server utilized “nail and mail” service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the process server’s uncontradicted testimony that he made three attempts to effect personal service at the appellant’s residence at different times on different days, including a Saturday, were sufficient to satisfy the “due diligence” requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; Farias v Simon, 73 AD3d 569, 570 [2010]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d
The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Eng, P.J., Angiolillo, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.