Glikman v. Horowitz
| Decision Date | 18 December 1978 |
| Citation | 411 N.Y.S.2d 365,66 A.D.2d 814 |
| Parties | Esther GLIKMAN et al., Appellants, v. Albert HOROWITZ, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Segan, Culhane, Nemerov & Green, P. C., New York City (Geraldine Gould, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Martin, Clearwater & Bell, New York City (Marsha Birnbaum, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and DAMIANI, GULOTTA and HAWKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 7, 1977, which denied their motion to dismiss the first defense of defendant's answer, i. e., that the plaintiffs failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant because of improper service of process, and sustained the said defense.
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the plaintiffs obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to CPLR 308 (subd. 2), i. e., by service of process upon a person of "suitable age and discretion" at the defendant's actual business address, plus mailing a second copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant's last known Residence. It is undisputed that the process server mailed the second copy of the process to the defendant's Business address, which address was plainly listed in the telephone directory as an "office". Process was never mailed to the defendant's residence as mandated by the statute. This court has previously held that, absent the intervention of equity, such a defect cannot be disregarded as a mere procedural "irregularity" inasmuch as the statute must be strictly complied with to confer personal jurisdiction (see Chalk v. Catholic Med. Center of Brooklyn & Queens, 58 A.D.2d 822, 396 N.Y.S.2d 864). We have examined the record and find that there exists no grounds for the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel (see Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 448-449, 406 N.Y.S.2d 259, 261, 377 N.E.2d 713, 715).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connell v. Hayden
...will not satisfy the statute (Chalk v. Catholic Med. Center of Brooklyn & Queens, 58 A.D.2d 822, 396 N.Y.S.2d 864; Glikman v. Horowitz, 66 A.D.2d 814, 411 N.Y.S.2d 365; Frankel v. French & Polyclinic Med. School & Health Center, 70 A.D.2d 947, 948, 417 N.Y.S.2d 776; cf. Pober v. Boulevard H......
-
Donohue v. La Pierre
...1161). It is conceded that provisions of the statute must be strictly complied with to properly effectuate service (Glikman v. Horowitz, 66 A.D.2d 814, 411 N.Y.S.2d 365). This includes compliance with both delivery and mailing (Booth v. Lipton, 87 A.D.2d 856, 449 N.Y.S.2d 289). However, we ......
-
Donohue v. Schwartz
...decisions in Booth v. Lipton, 87 A.D.2d 856, 449 N.Y.S.2d 289; Brownell v. Feingold, 82 A.D.2d 844, 440 N.Y.S.2d 57; Glikman v. Horowitz, 66 A.D.2d 814, 411 N.Y.S.2d 365). This was error. We are in accord with the Second Department cases cited by the Special Referee clearly rejecting any su......
-
Mirabile v. Profy
...costs or disbursements. (See Chalk v. Catholic Med. Center of Brooklyn, Queens, 58 A.D.2d 822, 396 N.Y.S.2d 864; Glikman v. Horowitz, 66 A.D.2d 814, 411 N.Y.S.2d 365.) ...