From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nichols v. Abbey Richmond Ambulance Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1999
259 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 29, 1999

Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate an order of the same court entered September 18, 1996, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability upon its default in answering the complaint. The plaintiff established that she effected service upon the defendant by delivering a copy of the summons and verified complaint to the Secretary of State ( see, CPLR 311; Business Corporation Law § 306), and the defendant does not contend that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect ( see, Rivera v. 999 Realty Mgt., 246 A.D.2d 637). Since the defendant failed to show that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend, the motion was properly denied ( see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138).

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nichols v. Abbey Richmond Ambulance Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1999
259 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Nichols v. Abbey Richmond Ambulance Service

Case Details

Full title:QUEVANI NICHOLS, Respondent, v. ABBEY RICHMOND AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.…

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

Date published: Mar 29, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 397

Citing Cases

Trini v. Fulton

In support of its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon its…

Thas v. Dayrich Trading, Inc.

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015…