Lattingtown Harbor Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Agostino
Decision Date | 14 November 2006 |
Docket Number | 2005-05576.,2005-11164.,2005-08218.,2005-05577.,2005-03786. |
Parties | LATTINGTOWN HARBOR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent, v. DOMINICK AGOSTINO, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff homeowners' association commenced this action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from erecting "piers, fencing or gates" on his property. The defendant's property is located within the confines of a single-family home residential community, all of which properties are part of a common scheme, encumbered by restrictive covenants in an amended declaration. The amended declaration requires that a homeowner obtain permission for the construction of "any structure" and "fences of any kind."
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly determined that the plaintiff acquired jurisdiction over the defendant through proper service of process. While the court framed the issue in its oral decision, after the traverse hearing as one of credibility, and discussed various factors that it considered in making its determination, it is clear that the court employed the correct legal standard in assessing whether the defendant was properly served. "A process server's sworn affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2)" (Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343, 343-344 [2003]). In this case, the defendant's wife rebutted the process server's affidavit with an affidavit stating that she had not been served, and was thus entitled to a hearing to determine the validity of service of process where the plaintiff had the burden to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence (id. at 344).
When there is conflicting evidence, a credibility determination is necessary (see Home Fed. Sav. Bank v Mahood, 260 AD2d 438, 439 [1999]). "The hearing co...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C & H Import & Export, Inc. v. MNA Global, Inc.
...754, 846 N.Y.S.2d 280; Foster v. Jordan, 269 A.D.2d 152, 703 N.Y.S.2d 23; cf. Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v. Agostino, 34 A.D.3d 536, 538, 825 N.Y.S.2d 86). Furthermore, Amitay did not deny that the individual described in the affidavit with respect to service of MNA was a m......
-
Tarrytown v. Chacko
...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 536, 538, 825 N.Y.S.2d 86).DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and LASALLE, JJ., ...
-
Seeman v. Wagenknecht
...needs to be made, and defendant is thus entitled to a hearing to resolve the issue. (See Lattingtown Harbor Property v. Agostino, 34 A.D.3d 536, 825 N.Y.S.2d 86 [2d Dept., 2006]). The Court does not find that defendant has waived her jurisdictional defense by raising a counterclaim related ......
-
Chusid v. Silvera
...v. Gass, 42 A.D.3d 393, 840 N.Y.S.2d 58;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 536, 538, 825 N.Y.S.2d 86). The record in this case supports the court's conclusion that the plaintiff maintained a residence in......