Narrative Opinion Summary
The order from the Supreme Court of New York County, issued by Justice Burton S. Sherman on September 2, 1993, affirmed the plaintiffs' motion to confirm the Special Referee's report regarding the service of process. The court upheld the finding that the process server's three attempts to access the defendant's apartment building, including a visit at 7:00 p.m., demonstrated due diligence justifying substituted service under CPLR 308(4). After confirming the defendant's residency at the premises, the court deemed it appropriate for the process server to attach a copy of the summons and complaint to the interior door of the building's foyer, which was considered the "outer bounds" of the defendant's actual dwelling. The ruling was unanimous, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Special Referee's Reportsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court affirmed the Special Referee's report regarding service of process, indicating agreement with the findings and methodology used.
Reasoning: The order from the Supreme Court of New York County, issued by Justice Burton S. Sherman on September 2, 1993, affirmed the plaintiffs' motion to confirm the Special Referee's report regarding the service of process.
Awarding of Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs, recognizing their successful motion and adherence to procedural requirements.
Reasoning: The ruling was unanimous, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Due Diligence in Service of Processsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the process server's three attempts to serve the defendant, including one in the evening, constituted due diligence, thereby justifying the use of substituted service.
Reasoning: The court upheld the finding that the process server's three attempts to access the defendant's apartment building, including a visit at 7:00 p.m., demonstrated due diligence justifying substituted service under CPLR 308(4).
Substituted Service Under CPLR 308(4)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Substituted service was deemed appropriate after confirming the defendant's residency and the process server's attachment of documents to the foyer door, considered the outer bounds of the defendant's dwelling.
Reasoning: After confirming the defendant's residency at the premises, the court deemed it appropriate for the process server to attach a copy of the summons and complaint to the interior door of the building's foyer, which was considered the 'outer bounds' of the defendant's actual dwelling.