Contrary to petitioner's argument, respondent timely served its motion papers by mailing them more than nine days before the return date, using an overnight delivery service (see CPLR 2103 [b] [6]; 2214 [b]).
Petitioner failed to show that the petition was served on a person authorized to receive service of process pursuant to CPLR 311 (a) (1). The provision of the parties' franchise agreement on which petitioner relies concerns only service of a notice required...
Let's get started
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.
