Bank of Am., N.A. v Grufferman

Bank of Am., N.A. v Grufferman 2014 NY Slip Op 03436 Decided on May 13, 2014 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 13, 2014
Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Freedman, Richter, JJ. 12449-
111508/10

[*1]12450 Bank of America, N.A., etc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Howard Grufferman, et al., Defendants-Appellants, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, et al., Defendants.




Michael Medina and Donald B. Cohen, New York, for
appellants.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, New York (Tanya D. Bosi
of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, New York County (Eileen Rakower, J.), entered April 17, 2013, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 10, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, following a traverse hearing, denied defendants-appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the above order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Service upon the doorman of defendants' apartment building was proper under CPLR 308(2), given that the process server was
denied access to defendants' apartment (see F. I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen, 41 NY2d 794, 797-798 [1977]). The court credited the process server's testimony that the doorman denied access to defendants' apartment, and matters of credibility are best determined by the motion court (see Matter of Corcoran [Ardra Ins. Co.], 176 AD2d 508, 508 [1st Dept 1991]).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion to deny defendants' request to admit [*2]the doorman's logbook into evidence (see Montes v New York City Tr. Auth., 46 AD3d 121, 123 [1st Dept 2007]). In any event, even if the court erred, the error was harmless in light of the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record.

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

ENTERED: MAY 13, 2014

CLERK