Hochhauser v. Bungeroth

Decision Date14 January 1992
Citation578 N.Y.S.2d 170,179 A.D.2d 431
PartiesDavid HOCHHAUSER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harold A. BUNGEROTH, etc., Defendants-Appellants, and Morkuno Corporation, Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Before MILONAS, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, KUPFERMAN, ROSS and ASCH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order/Judgment (one paper), of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered June 20, 1991, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's cross-motion to confirm the judicial hearing officer's finding, dated January 29, 1991, that plaintiff had obtained personal jurisdiction over the individual defendant, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No rigid rule has been prescribed for determining whether "due diligence" has been exercised in attempting to effect service so as to permit the use of substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308, subd. 4 (Barnes v. City of New York, 51 N.Y.2d 906, 907, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991, 415 N.E.2d 979). The three attempts to serve defendant at his home made during various hours of the day were sufficient to establish "due diligence" so as to permit the use of substituted service (Id.; see Moss v. Corwin, 154 A.D.2d 443, 444, 546 N.Y.S.2d 15). Further, we note defendant failed to preserve this issue for our review (Recovery Consultants, Inc., v. Shih-Hsieh, 141 A.D.2d 272, 534 N.Y.S.2d 374).

There is no merit to defendant's claim that plaintiff failed to enter the judgment within one year after his default, requiring dismissal of the claim as abandoned, since the default did not occur upon date of service, but, at the minimum, 30 days thereafter, pursuant to CPLR 308, subd. 4, and 320 subd. a (Insurance Co. of North America v. Reifler, 45 A.D.2d 488, 359 N.Y.S.2d 820).

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Sartor v. Utica Taxi Center, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 29, 2003
    ... ... Hochhauser v. Bungeroth, 179 A.D.2d 431, 578 N.Y.S.2d 170 (1st Dep't 1992), it ruled that three attempts to serve defendant at home at various times when ... ...
  • Barker v. Cruz
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • May 13, 2022
    ...to nail-and-mail service, establishes prima-facie proof of proper service under the due-diligence standard. (see Hochhauser v Bungeroth, 179 A.D.2d 431, 578 N.Y.S.2d 170 [1st Dept 1992] (Three attempts to serve defendant at his home made during various hours of the day were sufficient to es......
  • Barker v. Cruz
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • May 13, 2022
    ...to nail-and-mail service, establishes prima-facie proof of proper service under the due-diligence standard. (see Hochhauser v Bungeroth, 179 A.D.2d 431, 578 N.Y.S.2d 170 [1st Dept 1992] (Three attempts to serve defendant at his home made during various hours of the day were sufficient to es......
  • Goetz v. Synthesys Technologies, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 1, 2005
    ... ... requirement is measured, and whether a party has satisfied that requirement will necessarily depend upon the facts of each case."); Hochhauser v. Bungeroth, 179 A.D.2d 431, 578 N.Y.S.2d 170 (N.Y.App.Div.1992) ("No rigid rule has been prescribed for determining whether `due diligence' has ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT