Barnes v. City of New York
| Citation | 51 N.Y.2d 906,434 N.Y.S.2d 991 |
| Parties | , 415 N.E.2d 979 Alfred BARNES et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and Arthur Schwartz et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 11 November 1980 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Ronald J. Koerner for appellants.
Steven B. Prystowsky, New York City, for respondents.
The question before the court is whether the Appellate Division, 70 A.D.2d 580, 416 N.Y.S.2d 52 erred as a matter of law in finding that the "due diligence" requirement of CPLR 308 (subd. 4) had not been met. Expressed another way, the question is whether, on the facts before us, there was demonstrated due diligence as a matter of law.
We note in passing that we do not construe the determination at the Appellate Division as having laid down any hard rule of law. Indeed, in determining the question of whether due diligence has been exercised, no rigid rule could properly be prescribed. Viewing this case on its facts, we conclude there was no error of law, and the order should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sartor v. Utica Taxi Center, Inc.
...441, 443 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Barnes v. City of New York, 70 A.D.2d 580, 416 N.Y.S.2d 52, 53 (2d Dep't 1979), aff'd, 51 N.Y.2d 906, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991, 415 N.E.2d 979, 980 (1980). Mesamours's sole reliance on Second Department authority, with only one exception,3 to support his contention is surpr......
-
O'Heaney v. O'Heaney
...attack upon the necessity for, and thus the validity of, "nail and mail" service in the ordinary case (see Barnes v. City of New York, 51 N.Y.2d 906, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991, 415 N.E.2d 979, affg. 70 A.D.2d 580, 416 N.Y.S.2d 52) is the same as that which must be demonstrated to the court before an......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rozenberg
...attempts to effectuate service constitute due diligence is determined on a case-by-case basis. See Barnes v. City of New York, 51 N.Y.2d 906, 907, 415 N.E.2d 979, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y.1980); Estate of Waterman v. Jones, 46 A.D.3d 63, 66, 843 N.Y.S.2d 462, 464 (2d Dep't 2007). However, “the......
-
Kaszovitz v. Weiszman
...due diligence on the part of the process server (see, Barnes v. City of New York, 70 A.D.2d 580, 416 N.Y.S.2d 52, affd. 51 N.Y.2d 906, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991, 415 N.E.2d 979; Reed v. Domenech, 90 A.D.2d 844, 456 N.Y.S.2d 90; Carfora v. Pesiri, 89 A.D.2d 237, 455 N.Y.S.2d 94). That Martin Weiszman......