From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Day v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 2008
47 A.D.3d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-08371.

January 22, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated August 3, 2007, which denied that branch of his cross motion which was to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).

Doron Zanani, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Crane, J.P., Fisher, Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the summons with notice was not jurisdictionally defective merely because it omitted a specific dollar amount of money damages sought by the plaintiff ( see Sherk v Sherk, 37 AD3d 1062, 1062-1063). Moreover, since the defendant held out the address where process was served as his business address, including maintaining that address as his business address on his registration as an attorney with the Office of Court Administration, and induced the plaintiff's reliance thereon, he cannot now disclaim such address as his "actual place of business" for purposes of service of process ( see Melton v Brotman Foot Care Group, 198 AD2d 481, 482; cf. European Am. Bank Trust Co. v Serota, 242 AD2d 363, 363-364).


Summaries of

Day v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 2008
47 A.D.3d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Day v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:MARY DAY, Respondent, v. THEODORE M. DAVIS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 22, 2008

Citations

47 A.D.3d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 444
850 N.Y.S.2d 189

Citing Cases

Tulino v. Hiller, P.C.

Service on a defendant may be made at that individual's "actual place of business" (CPLR 308[2]), which…

Tulino v. Hiller, P.C.

Service on a defendant may be made at that individual's "actual place of business" ( CPLR 308[2] ), which…