Summary
finding service of process by delivery to other tenants insufficient "where there was clear access to the defendants' apartment at all times"
Summary of this case from Bruccoleri v. GangemiOpinion
May 25, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
Once a jurisdictional defense is raised in answer to the complaint, it is deemed timely asserted, and defendants do not waive the defense by asserting a "related" counterclaim, or by thereafter seeking discovery or participating in defense of the action (Textile Technology Exch. v Davis, 81 N.Y.2d 56; Bank Hapoalim v Kotten Mach. Co., 151 A.D.2d 374, 376). In this case, no waiver took place, as defendants' counterclaims for nuisance, and the actions they took to achieve an abatement thereof, are inextricably linked to and arise out of the same set of transactions or occurrences as plaintiff's claims against them for interference with contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There also was no basis for finding valid service of process in this case, where there was clear access to the defendants' apartment at all times, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate, at the reference, that the acceptance of mail and deliveries by other tenants in the building was anything more than a courtesy (cf., duPont, Glore Forgan Co. v Chen, 41 N.Y.2d 794; Roldan v Thorpe, 117 A.D.2d 790, lv dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 663).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.