1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.2d
  4. 295 A.D.2d
  5. 295 A.D.2d 582 (2002)
 

MOURTIL v. MING PENG

295 A.D.2d 582 (2002)

744 N.Y.S.2d 883

ANTONIO MOURTIL, Appellant, v. CHI MING PENG et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) ANTONIO MOURTIL, Plaintiff, v. A.W.S. DEVELOPMENT CORP., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. CHI MING PENG et al., Third-Party Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided June 24, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The purported service of process upon the defendants in Action No. 1 (hereinafter the defendants) was not proper because the address where the summons and complaint were allegedly delivered to a person of suitable age and discretion was not the actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode of the defendants (see CPLR 308 [2]). Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases