Rodriguez v. Khamis
| Citation | 201 A.D.2d 715,608 N.Y.S.2d 486 |
| Parties | Noelia RODRIGUEZ, Respondent, v. Abdelwahab KHAMIS, et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1994 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Michael J. DeZorett, New York City, for appellants.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and PIZZUTO, FRIEDMANN and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants, Abdelwahab Khamis and Afaf Khamis, appeal (1) from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated July 23, 1991, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the action on jurisdictional grounds, and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated February 6, 1992, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated July 23, 1991, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 6, 1992, made upon reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated February 6, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We find that the attempted personal service at the defendants' actual home address on three occasions when a working person might reasonably have been expected to be at home was a sufficient showing of due diligence permitting substituted service (see, CPLR 308[4]; Brunson v. Hill, 191 A.D.2d 334, 595 N.Y.S.2d 314; Hochhauser v. Bungeroth, 179 A.D.2d 431, 578 N.Y.S.2d 170; cf., Pizzolo v. Monaco, 186 A.D.2d 727, 588 N.Y.S.2d 910; Serrano v. Pape, 188 A.D.2d 647, 591 N.Y.S.2d 516; Moss v. Corwin, 154 A.D.2d 443, 546 N.Y.S.2d 15). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion, inter alia, to dismiss the action on jurisdictional grounds.
In addition, the defendants' second motion, although denominated as a motion for reargument and renewal, was in fact a motion for reargument insofar as the defendants did not allege any additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but were not then known to them. Moreover, upon reargument, the Supreme Court correctly adhered to its original determination, since it had neither overlooked nor misapplied any controlling principle of law.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sartor v. Utica Taxi Center, Inc.
...standard demanding evidence of an effort to serve defendant at his actual place of business. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Khamis, 201 A.D.2d 715, 608 N.Y.S.2d 486 (2d Dep't 1994) ("We find that the attempted personal service at the defendants' actual home address on three occasions when a workin......
-
Borja v. Moshouris, 2007 NY Slip Op 32534(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/8/2007)
...case, the attempts were sufficient to establish "due diligence" so as to permit the use of substituted service (see, Rodriguez v. Khamis, 201 A.D.2d 715, 608 N.Y.S.2d 486; see also, Hochhauser v. Bungeroth, 179 A.D.2d 431, 578 N.Y.S.2d The same result obtains here. See, Rodriguez v. Khamis,......
-
Am. Builders & Contractors Supply Co. v. CR1 Contracting, LLC
...required "three occasions when a working person might reasonably have been expected to be at home[.]" Rodriguez v. Khamis , 201 A.D.2d 715, 715, 608 N.Y.S.2d 486 (2d Dep't 1994) ; see Sartor v. Utica Taxi Center, Inc. , 260 F. Supp. 2d 670, 675-76 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (collecting cases). Where a......
-
Gross Found., Inc. v. Goldner
...at different times and on different days, including a Saturday, were sufficient to constitute due diligence."); Rodriguez v. Khamis, 608 N.Y.S.2d 486, 486 (2d Dep't 1994). In this case, the affidavit of plaintiff's process server states that service was attempted at defendant's residence on......