Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ingrid ALVAREZ, et al., plaintiffs, v. Emil KLEIN, et al., defendants, Baruch Mappa, et al., appellants, Antonia C. Novello, etc., respondent; State of New York, nonparty-respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for the appointment of a receiver, the defendants Baruch Mappa and Martin Rosenberg appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated May 4, 2007, as, upon granting the application of the defendant Antonia C. Novello, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, in effect, to join this action for trial with a related action entitled State of New York v. Baruch Mappa and Martin Rosenberg, pending in the same court under Index No. 10658/07, permitted the State of New York, as the plaintiff in the related action, to serve the summons and complaint in the related action upon their attorney pursuant to CPLR 308(5).
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs.
The respondents failed to establish that service on the appellants pursuant to CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) was “impracticable” so as to permit service under CPLR 308(5) (see Staton v. Omwukeme, 277 A.D.2d 443, 715 N.Y.S.2d 908; Smith v. Waters, 232 A.D.2d 545, 648 N.Y.S.2d 889; Coffey v. Russo, 231 A.D.2d 546, 647 N.Y.S.2d 276; Porter v. Porter, 227 A.D.2d 538, 642 N.Y.S.2d 960; Markoff v. South Nassau Community Hosp., 91 A.D.2d 1064, 458 N.Y.S.2d 672, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 283, 473 N.Y.S.2d 766, 461 N.E.2d 1253). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting service of the summons and complaint in a related action upon the appellants' attorney pursuant to CPLR 308(5).
The respondents' remaining contention that the appellants waived their objection to service pursuant to CPLR 308(5), is not properly before this Court and, in any event, is without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 14, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)