JIA WANG, plf-ap, v. DAN ZHAO, a/k/a DANYANG ZHAO, def-res, OSIDDEAS KONSTAKOPOLOUS, def

4263-4264. JIA WANG, plf-ap, v. DAN ZHAO, a/k/a DANYANG ZHAO, def-res, OSIDDEAS KONSTAKOPOLOUS, def — JIA WANG, APPELLANT PRO SE. Aaron L. Lebenger, Flushing, for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered May 4, 2016, which granted defendant Dan Zhao's motion to confirm the report of a special referee, made after a hearing, recommending dismissal of the complaint against Zhao based on lack of personal jurisdiction, denied plaintiff's cross motion to reject the report's recommendation, and dismissed the complaint as against Zhao, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered August 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4263-4264. JIA WANG, plf-ap, v. DAN ZHAO, a/k/a DANYANG ZHAO, def-res, OSIDDEAS KONSTAKOPOLOUS, def — JIA WANG, APPELLANT PRO SE. Aaron L. Lebenger, Flushing, for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered May 4, 2016, which granted defendant Dan Zhao’s motion to confirm the report of a special referee, made after a hearing, recommending dismissal of the complaint against Zhao based on lack of personal jurisdiction, denied plaintiff’s cross motion to reject the report’s recommendation, and dismissed the complaint as against Zhao, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered August 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s contention that Zhao testified falsely at the traverse hearing is unsupported by the record. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, Zhao acknowledged in his testimony that he used one apartment at 130 Water Street as his mailing address on various documents and that he owned another apartment in that building. The Small Claims Court records relied upon by plaintiff do not contradict Zhao’s testimony and, in any event, are irrelevant because they postdate plaintiff’s attempted service on Zhao by almost two years.

JIA WANG, plf-ap, v. DAN ZHAO, a/k/a DANYANG ZHAO, def-res, OSIDDEAS KONSTAKOPOLOUS, def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal