Coyne v. Besser
| Decision Date | 16 October 1989 |
| Citation | 154 A.D.2d 503,546 N.Y.S.2d 129 |
| Parties | Martin COYNE, et al., Appellants, v. Walter A. BESSER, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Cullen & Dykman, Brooklyn (Timothy J. Flanagan, of counsel), for appellants.
Schiavetti, Begos and Nicholson, New York City (Carol Tocci, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and EIBER, KOOPER and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated March 29, 1988, which granted the defendantWalter A. Besser's motion to dismiss the complaint as against him on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated June 30, 1988, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 29, 1988, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated June 30, 1988, made upon reargument; and it is further ORDERED that the order dated June 30, 1988, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
At a hearing held on December 12, 1986, the credible evidence adduced indicated that the plaintiffs' process server intended to serve the defendant Dr. Walter A. Besser with process as the latter walked through his waiting room to his inner office. The hearing court found, however, that although the process server called out the doctor's name, he did not inform the doctor or otherwise put the doctor on notice that he had process to serve, and the doctor's entering his inner office could not be said to constitute a deliberate course of evasion which would justify leaving the process in the doctor's general vicinity. It is well settled that a defendant has a duty to accept service of process (see, Bossuk v. Steinberg, 58 N.Y.2d 916, 460 N.Y.S.2d 509, 447 N.E.2d 56), and that one who resists such service may be considered validly served pursuant to CPLR 308(1) if process is subsequently left in his or her general vicinity (see, Haak v. Town of Wheatland, 86 A.D.2d 961, 962, 448 N.Y.S.2d 305). It is imperative, however, that the defendant be made aware that he or she is in fact being served with process (see, Haak v. Town of Wheatland, supra ).
We see no basis to disturb the hearing court's finding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. Mueller
...727 N.Y.S.2d 895 [2d Dept.2001]; Roman v. Guzzardo, 198 A.D.2d 489, 489, 604 N.Y.S.2d 183 [2d Dept.1993]; Coyne v. Besser, 154 A.D.2d 503, 503-04, 546 N.Y.S.2d 129 [2d Dept.1989] ), and that the process or other legal papers will be left outsidethe door ( see Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v. Ts......
-
Atlantic Northeast Dist. Church of Brethren v. First Haitian Church of Brethren of N.Y., 2004 NY Slip Op 50330(U) (NY 4/28/2004)
...who resists may be considered validly served if process is subsequently left in his or her general vicinity. Coyne v. Besser, 154 A.D. 2d 503, 546 N.Y.S. 2d 129 (2d Dept. 1989). Also, substitute service may be made on a party who resists or refuses to submit to service. Manhattan Embassy Co......
-
Kaider v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 14.
...of credibility to which we accord great weight on appeal (see, Van Raalte v. Metz, 161 A.D.2d 760, 556 N.Y.S.2d 112; Coyne v. Besser, 154 A.D.2d 503, 504, 546 N.Y.S.2d 129), we decline to disturb those We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contentions, and find that they are without me......
-
City, Hayes, Meagher & Dissette, P.C. v. Rotcajg
... ... imperative ... that the defendant be made aware that he or she ... is in fact being served with process."4 Coyne v ... Besser, 546 N.Y.S.2d 129, 130 (1989) (service not valid ... when process left on chair in reception area of doctor's ... office after ... ...