Olscamp v. Fasciano
| Decision Date | 20 June 2014 |
| Citation | 988 N.Y.S.2d 805,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04648,118 A.D.3d 1472 |
| Parties | Joseph OLSCAMP, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Janeanne E. FASCIANO, Defendant, and C.M. Mendetta, Jr., Defendant–Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Walsh, Roberts & Grace, Buffalo (Joseph H. Emminger, Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak LLP, Buffalo (Nancy A. Long of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from an order that granted the motion of C.M. Mendetta, Jr. (defendant) to dismiss the complaint against him pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) based on improper service of the summons and complaint. We affirm. We reject plaintiff's contention that the “nail and mail” service upon defendant's last known address was proper. That method of service “requires that the summons be affixed to the door of the defendant's ‘actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode’ ” ( Kalamadeen v. Singh, 63 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 882 N.Y.S.2d 437, quoting CPLR 308[4] ). “Although the required subsequent mailing to the defendant's last known residence will suffice for the second element of service under CPLR 308(4), affixing process to the door of the defendant's last known residence will not be sufficient to meet the first element of [CPLR 308(4) ]” ( id.;see Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 239, 422 N.Y.S.2d 356, 397 N.E.2d 1161). We reject plaintiff's further contention that defendant should be estopped from raising defective service as a defense inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record that defendant “engage[d] in conduct calculated to prevent plaintiff from learning his new address” ( Seiler v. Ricci's Towing Servs., 227 A.D.2d 920, 921, 643 N.Y.S.2d 789;see Marsh v. Phillips, 167 A.D.2d 905, 905–906, 562 N.Y.S.2d 273).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rice v. Cole
-
Desselle v. Hills
... ... "engage[d] in conduct calculated to prevent plaintiff ... from learning [their] address" (Olscamp v ... Fasciano, 118 A.D.3d 1472, 1473 [4th Dept 2014] ... [internal quotation marks omitted]). We also reject ... plaintiff's contention that ... ...
-
Alostar Bank of Commerce v. Sanoian
...240–241, 422 N.Y.S.2d 356, 397 N.E.2d 1161 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones, 139 A.D.3d 520, 523, 32 N.Y.S.3d 95 ; Olscamp v. Fasciano, 118 A.D.3d 1472, 1472–1473, 988 N.Y.S.2d 805 ). We reject plaintiff's contention that defendant received actual notice of the action and thus was properly......
- Rice v. Cole