Torres v Soler
Annotate this CaseDecided on November 17, 2009
Supreme Court, Bronx County
Carmen Torres, Plaintiff,
against
David Soler and Mercury Lock & Door, Inc. s/h/a Mercury Lock & Door, Defendants.
20465/2006
Plaintiff:
Don A. Carlos, Jr., Esq.
352 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1202
New York, New York 10001
(212) 631-7442
On the hearing: John L. Lombardi, Esq.,
20 Stuyvesant Oval
New York, NY 10009-2202
(212) 979-5292
Defendants:
Louis M. Spizzirro, Esq.
165 Bronx River Road
Yonkers, New York 10704
(914) 450-2057
Lucindo Suarez, J.
Upon the notice of motion dated June 15, 2009 and the affidavits (2),
affirmation and exhibits submitted in support thereof; the July 28, 2009 affirmation in opposition
and the exhibits annexed thereto; the August 21, 2009 decision and interim order of the
undersigned which set this matter down for a traverse hearing; a traverse hearing having been
conducted on November 12, 2009 (Joan Schaefer, Senior Court Reporter); and due deliberation;
the court finds:
In this action seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries incurred in
an automobile accident, defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to obtain
jurisdiction [*2]over their persons. Pursuant to the affidavits of
service filed in this action, service upon defendant David Soler ("Soler") was made on November
28, 2006 at 12:05 p.m. pursuant to CPLR 308(4) by affixing the summons and complaint to the
door of Soler's residence after unsuccessful attempts to serve him there on November 22, 2006 at
6:46 a.m., November 23, 2006 at 8:22 p.m. and November 28, 2006 at 12:05 p.m. Service upon
defendant Mercury Lock & Door, Inc. ("Mercury") was made pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1) by
service upon general agent John Smith found at Mercury's place of business on November 20,
2006 at 3:00 p.m. The affidavit of service makes no indication that John Smith was intended to
be an alias or the name of someone whose true name was not given or was otherwise unknown.
Based upon the affidavits submitted by each defendant, the undersigned found sufficient reason
to conduct a traverse hearing on the issue of service of process.
The affidavit of defendant David Soler admitted residence at the address where
service was alleged to have been completed. Soler, however, denied having received the
summons and complaint. He averred that he worked from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and was
therefore away from home from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., although his wife would have been home
at the times of all service attempts. He also averred that he was not on vacation or otherwise
unavailable in November 2006. Soler's testimony at the traverse hearing was consistent with his
affidavit.
Mercury's president, Howard Levine ("Levine"), averred that Mercury had ceased
maintaining offices at the address served approximately eight (8) months prior to the service, nor
did Mercury employ anyone fitting the description of the agent served. By November 2006,
Mercury's former location had been demolished and the address was a parking lot. Levine's
testimony at the traverse hearing was consistent with his affidavit.
Plaintiff's process server did not bring any logbooks, notes or other documentation
with him[FN1], had no
specific recollection of serving either defendant and could not offer any specifics as to his
actions in serving process on either defendant. He was, however, able to confirm his signature on
each affidavit of service. He testified that he does not conduct independent research when given
an assignment to serve process; he assumes the attorney will have done the research and merely
goes to the address given to him by the attorney.
Affidavits of service in appropriate form constitute prima facie evidence that
service was properly effectuated. See Chinese Consol. Benevolent Ass'n v. Chan Tsang,
254 AD2d 222, 679 NYS2d 54 (1st Dep't 1998). To raise an issue of fact with respect to service,
defendant must set forth specific probative facts; unsubstantiated and conclusory denials of
receipt are insufficient. See Chinese Consol., supra ; Rosario v. Beverly Rd. Realty Co., 38 AD3d 875, 833 NYS2d 166
(2d Dep't 2007). Here, defendants each offered details sufficient to warrant a hearing. The
affidavits of service were therefore rendered "inconclusive" and it became incumbent upon
plaintiff to demonstrate service by a fair preponderance of the evidence. See Blue Spot, Inc.
v. Superior Merchandise Electronics Co., 150 AD2d 175, 176-77, 540 NYS2d 787, 789 (1st
Dep't 1989).
With respect to defendant Soler, the court takes judicial notice of the facts that
November [*3]22, 2006 was the day before Thanksgiving, that
November 23, 2006 was Thanksgiving Day and that November 28, 2006 was the Tuesday after
Thanksgiving. Holidays are not per se disfavored as far as service of process is
concerned. See Slater v. Jackson, 25 Misc. 783, 55 N.Y.S. 581 (App. Term 1899);
see also Didsbury v. Van Tassell, 10 N.Y.S. 32 (2d Dep't 1890). However, "[a] court
does not properly evaluate someone else's religious or cultural practice, but only takes notes of
the patterns of conduct for whatever reason they may be so as to note when a person is likely to
be present or absent for service of process." Lee v. Liu, 2007 NY Misc. LEXIS 3397, at
*5 n.2 (Civ. Ct. NY County Apr. 6, 2007) (citation omitted).
It has been stated that people are more likely to be at home on holidays, and that
service on those days is therefore more liable to calculatingly apprise a defendant of an action
against him. See Sartor v. Utica Taxi Ctr., Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 670 (S.D.NY 2003)
citing Barnes v. City of New York, 70 AD2d 580, 416 NYS2d 52, 53 (2d Dep't 1979),
affirmed, 51 NY2d 906, 415 NE2d 979, 980, 434 NYS2d 991 (1980). Service on or near
a holiday may not be of significant import where, as here, the defendant has stated that he was
not away or unavailable. See Moran v. Harting, 161 Misc 2d 728, 615 NYS2d 225 (Sup.
Ct. Westchester County 1994); see also Dunleavy v. Moya, 237 AD2d 176, 655 NYS2d
371 (1st Dep't 1997), appeal dismissed, 90 NY2d 888, 684 NE2d 282, 661 NYS2d 832
(1997) (two attempts during Memorial Day weekend and final attempt on Memorial Day
constituted due diligence).
Other cases suggest that service on holidays or during holiday weekends does not
generally contribute to an overall scheme of due diligence. See e.g. Scott v. Knoblock,
204 AD2d 299, 611 NYS2d 265 (2d Dep't 1994); Claerbaut v. East Long Island
Hospital, 117 AD2d 772, 499 NYS2d 102 (2d Dep't 1986); Faculty Practice Plan of Long Is. Jewish
Med. Ctr. v. Guarneri, 13 Misc 3d 302, 822 NYS2d 389 (Civ. Ct., Queens County
2006). These cases, however, have rested on other factors which evidence a broader lack of due
diligence.
Here, there is no evidence of the process server's attempts to ascertain Soler's
workplace or work habits, see Spath v.
Zack, 36 AD3d 410, 829 NYS2d 19 (1st Dep't 2007); Walker v. Manning, 209
AD2d 691, 619 NYS2d 137 (2d Dep't 1994), even though the complaint clearly stated that Soler
was Mercury's employee and plaintiff purportedly knew Mercury's address, see JP Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A. v. H & B Design, Inc., 10 Misc 3d 1055A, 809 NYS2d 481 (Sup Ct,
Nassau County 2005). Under these circumstances, plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence
before resorting to the method permitted by CPLR 308(4). See Wood v. Balick, 197
AD2d 438, 603 NYS2d 1 (1st Dep't 1993); see also Faculty Practice Plan, supra .
Regarding service upon Mercury, Levine provided specific facts tending to establish
that Mercury could not have been served at the address in the affidavit of service. See Johnson v. Deas, 32 AD3d
253, 819 NYS2d 751 (1st Dep't 2006). The process server was unable to rebut this
testimony with facts regarding the sufficient identification of an appropriate agent at the location
or the accuracy of the address at which service was attempted. See Countrywide Home
Funding Co. v. Henry J.K., 16 Misc 3d 1132A, 847 NYS2d 900 (Sup Ct, Nassau County
2007).
Given the process server's lack of memory, his logbook and other writings would
have been particularly useful, as plaintiff was unable to provide any other independent basis for
service. See New York City Hous. Auth. Butler Houses v. Williams, 7 Misc 3d 1028A,
801 NYS2d 237 (Civ Ct, Bronx County 2005). The process server's inability to provide
"convincing additional details of the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged service"
was insufficient [*4]to rebut defendants' affidavits and testimony.
See Forrester v. Luisa, 52 AD3d
324, 324, 859 NYS2d 645, 646 (1st Dep't 2008); Holtzer v. Stepper, 268 AD2d 372,
702 NYS2d 268 (1st Dep't 2000).
If plaintiff does not acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendant, all subsequent
proceedings are a nullity. See e.g.
Beltre v. Babu, 32 AD3d 722, 821 NYS2d 69, rearg denied, 2006 NY App. Div.
LEXIS 14226 (1st Dep't Nov. 16, 2006). Therefore, even in the absence of a motion explicitly
seeking such relief, where it has been determined that plaintiff has not acquired jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, dismissal must follow. See Haberman v. Simon, 303 AD2d
181, 755 NYS2d 596 (1st Dep't 2003); see also NYCTL 2004-A Trust v. Faysal, 62 AD3d 409, 877
NYS2d 686 (1st Dep't 2009); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Beck, 243 AD2d 307, 664
NYS2d 522 (1st Dep't 1997).
In the absence of plaintiff's compliance with the statutory requirements for service, a
defendant's eventual receipt of the summons and complaint and/or actual notice of the action do
not confer jurisdiction. See e.g. Guzman v. New York, 175 AD2d 85, 572 NYS2d 330
(1st Dep't 1991), appeal denied, 78 NY2d 862, 586 NE2d 60, 578 NYS2d 877 (1991).
Defendant's knowledge of the action is irrelevant to the question of whether a defendant has been
properly served. See Bleier v. Koegler, 28 AD2d 835, 281 NYS2d 440 (1st Dep't 1967).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of lack of
personal jurisdiction is granted; and it is further
ORDERED, that plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED, that the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of
defendants dismissing the complaint.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: November 17, 2009
____________________________
Lucindo Suarez, J.S.C.
Footnotes
Footnote 1:Pursuant to 22 NYCRR §
208.29, a process server called to testify at a traverse hearing is required to bring with him all
documentation relative to the service in question. See also Borges v. Entra Am., Inc., 7
Misc 3d 1032A, 801 NYS2d 230 (Civ Ct, NY County 2005).
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.