Legal Opinion
Hochhauser v. Bungeroth
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 14, 1992PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
No rigid rule has been prescribed for determining whether "due diligence” has been exercised in attempting to effect service so as to permit the use of substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) (Barnes v City of New York, 51 NY2d 906, 907). The three attempts to serve defendant at his home made during various hours of the day were sufficient to establish "due diligence” so as to permit the use of substituted service (supra; see, Moss v Corwin, 154 AD2d 443, 444). Further, we note defendant failed to preserve this issue for our review (Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272).
There…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Recovery Consultants, Inc. v. Shih-HsiehAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Barnes v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Moss v. CorwinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Insurance Co. of North America v. ReiflerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
3Cited by19 opinions
- Kelly v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Goetz v. Synthesys Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005
- Sartor v. Utica Taxi Center, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Yihye v. BlumenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Hanover New England v. MacDougallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.