Navarro v Singh

Annotate this Case
Navarro v Singh 2013 NY Slip Op 06640 Decided on October 15, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 15, 2013
Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische, JJ.
10698N 4807/09

[*1]Antonio Navarro, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Dropattie Singh, Defendant-Appellant.




Howard L. Sherman, Ossining, for appellant.
Lieber & Gary, New York (Paul Golden of counsel), for
respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered August 3, 2012, which denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied his burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over defendant by service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(2). At the traverse hearing, the process server testified that he served defendant's sister, a person of suitable age and discretion, and mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to defendant. We find no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination to credit his testimony. That the affidavit of service filed by the process server incorrectly indicates that service was on the "Individual" defendant, and does not indicate that the summons and complaint was mailed to defendant, does not warrant a different result. These are mere
irregularities which do not divest the court of jurisdiction (see Bell v Bell, Kalnick, Klee & Green, 246 AD2d 442, 443 Dept 1998]; Mendez v Kyung Yoo, 23 AD3d 354 [2d Dept 2005]; Mrwik v Mrwik, 49 AD2d 750 [2d Dept 1975]). These irregularities in the affidavit of service did not stop or toll defendant's time to answer (see e.g. Morrissey v Sostar, S.A., 63 AD2d 944 [1st Dept 1978]).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 15, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.