From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miale v. Miale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1999
258 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 1, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff was personally served with the postjudgment motion on May 28, 1997, at approximately 9:30 P.M., in front of his home in Brooklyn. "The testimony on this issue was conflicting and presented a pure question of credibility which the court resolved in favor of finding service. This determination, made with the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor, is entitled to deference and will not be disturbed" if supported by the evidence ( Altman v. Wallach, 104 A.D.2d 391, 392; see also, Marks v. Buongiovanni, 214 A.D.2d 653).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either Without merit or do not warrant reversal ( see, Wern v. D'Alessandro, 219 A.D.2d 646).

Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Miale v. Miale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1999
258 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Miale v. Miale

Case Details

Full title:PETER MIALE, Appellant, v. AMY MIALE, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
682 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

Home Federal Savings Bank v. Mahood

Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the plaintiff satisfied its evidentiary burden at the hearing to…

Coronet Capital Company v. Spodek [2d Dept 1999

After a hearing, the court refused to enforce the mortgage of Kenneth Schechter and Richard Aidekman because…