Nichols v. Abbey Richmond Ambulance Service, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1999 |
| Citation | 259 A.D.2d 741,687 N.Y.S.2d 397 |
| Parties | QUEVANI NICHOLS, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ABBEY RICHMOND AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate an order of the same court entered September 18, 1996, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability upon its default in answering the complaint. The plaintiff established that she effected service upon the defendant by delivering a copy of the summons and verified complaint to the Secretary of State (see, CPLR 311 [1]; Business Corporation Law § 306), and the defendant does not contend that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect (see, Rivera v 999 Realty Mgt., 246 AD2d 637). Since the defendant failed to show that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend, the motion was properly denied (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thas v. Dayrich Trading, Inc.
...Corporation Law § 306; Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v. Nobre, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 511, 816 N.Y.S.2d 493; Nichols v. Richmond Ambulance Serv., 259 A.D.2d 741, 687 N.Y.S.2d 397). In opposition to the plaintiffs' showing in this regard, Dayrich did not contend that the address that it had on f......
- Nicolich v. Fitzgerald