LANDAUER LIMITED, plf-ap, v. JOE MONANI FISH CO., INC., defres

8915. LANDAUER LIMITED, plf-ap, v. JOE MONANI FISH CO., INC., defres — Clyde & Co US LLP, New York (Diane Westwood Wilson of counsel), for ap — Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (Chryssa V. Valletta of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered December 21, 2011, which, in an action to enforce a foreign money judgment entered against defendant on default (the English action), after a traverse hearing, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and dismissed the action, without prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8915. LANDAUER LIMITED, plf-ap, v. JOE MONANI FISH CO., INC., defres — Clyde & Co US LLP, New York (Diane Westwood Wilson of counsel), for ap — Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (Chryssa V. Valletta of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered December 21, 2011, which, in an action to enforce a foreign money judgment entered against defendant on default (the English action), after a traverse hearing, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and dismissed the action, without prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service of papers in the English action was properly made upon defendant, a New York corporation, in accordance with CPLR 311(a) (1) (see Forrester v. Luisa, 52 AD3d 324, 324 [1st Dept 2008]). Plaintiff’s process servers testified that upon arriving at the building referred to in the affidavits of service and not locating defendant’s name in the directory, they were directed by an individual who was mopping the floor to a particular office said to belong to defendant. Although the door to that office did not bear defendant’s name, the process servers nonetheless delivered a copy of the papers to the only individual present in the office, without specifically asking that person if he was employed by defendant or authorized to receive service on defendant’s behalf (see CPLR 311[a][1]; see also Fashion Page v. Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265, 273 [1980]). Under the circumstances, plaintiff’s process servers did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the individuals served were authorized to accept service of process on defendant’s behalf (see Arvanitis v. Bankers Trust Co., 286 AD2d 273, 273 [1st Dept 2001]; Martinez v. Church of St. Gregory, 261 AD2d 179, 180 [1st Dept 1999]).

LANDAUER LIMITED, plf-ap, v. JOE MONANI FISH CO., INC., defres

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal