Summary
referring to apartment as defendant's "dwelling" and upholding Appellate Division's holding that the dwelling was not a "residence"
Summary of this case from ZEBALLOS v. TANOpinion
Decided July 1, 1982
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, NORMAN C. RYP, J.
Saul I Weinstein for appellant.
Pamela Jarvis for respondent.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. The courts below concluded that defendant's dwelling place, where she stayed occasionally in connection with her business activities, was not a residence for purposes of CPLR 308 (subd 2). This affirmed factual determination is beyond the scope of our review, there being evidence in the record to support it.
Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.