Legal Opinion
Bennett v. Acosta
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 15, 2009PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The pro se plaintiff failed to establish that he complied with a legally-prescribed method of service authorized by the CPLR in attempting to acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The plaintiff submitted his own sworn affidavit of service, which showed that his first attempt at service was by regular mail. The plaintiff failed to establish that his first attempt to serve the defendant satisfied the requirements of CPLR 312-a (see Horseman Antiques, Inc. v Huch, 50 AD3d 963, 964 [2008]; Dominguez v Stimpson Mfg. Corp., 207 AD2d 375 [1994]).
The plaintiff submitted evidence that his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Horseman Antiques, Inc. v. HughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Shenko Electric, Inc. v. HartnettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Dominguez v. Stimpson Manufacturing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by9 opinions
- Klein v. Educational Loan Servicing, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. ValentinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Castillo v. JFK Medport, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Harewood v. CarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Krasa v. Dial 7 Car & Limousine Service, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.