King v. Gil
| Decision Date | 12 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2009-01958 |
| Parties | ANNE MARIE KING et al., Respondents, v. JOHN GIL et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendants' contention, the Supreme Court's determination that the testimony of the process server was more credible than that of the defense witnesses is entitled to great deference on appeal, and its conclusion that service was properly effected upon the defendants is supported by the record (see Aguilera v Pistilli Constr. & Dev. Corp., 63 AD3d 765, 767 [2009]; Mastroianni v Rallye Glen Cove, LLC, 59 AD3d 686, 687 [2009]; Gass v Gass, 42 AD3d 393 [2007]; Ahrens v Chisena, 40 AD3d 787, 788 [2007]; Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34 AD3d 536, 538 [2006]). Accordingly, we discern no basis in the record to disturb the Supreme Court's resolution of the issues.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jhang v. Nassau Univ. Med. Ctr.
...the weight of the credible 35 N.Y.S.3d 362 evidence (see Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel, 101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.S.2d 896 ; King v. Gil, 69 A.D.3d 678, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655 ; Yasuda Bank & Trust Co. [U.S.A.] v. Oree, 233 A.D.2d 391, 650 N.Y.S.2d 590 ). Under the circumstances of this case, the c......
-
Lopez v. DePietro
...determination that the defendant was properly served was supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing ( see King v. Gil, 69 A.D.3d 678, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655; Federal Fin. Co. v. Public Adm'r, Kings County, 47 A.D.3d 881, 882, 849 N.Y.S.2d 453; Ahrens v. Chisena, 40 A.D.3d 787, 788,......
-
Prosolov v. PSRS Realty
...v. Chacko, 115 A.D.3d at 704, 981 N.Y.S.2d 584 ; Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel, 101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.S.2d 896 ; King v. Gil, 69 A.D.3d 678, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655 ; Ortiz v. Jamwant, 305 A.D.2d 477, 758 N.Y.S.2d 829 ).The defendants' remaining contention, raised for the first time on appeal, i......
-
Tarrytown v. Chacko
...that the defendant was properly served with process ( see Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel, 101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.S.2d 896;King v. Gil, 69 A.D.3d 678, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655;Ahrens v. Chisena, 40 A.D.3d 787, 788, 836 N.Y.S.2d 278;Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v. Agostino, 34 A.D.3d 5......