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.
Roman TSIRULNIK, respondent, v. Nathan BOTTON, appellant, et al., defendant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Nathan Botton appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 31, 1996, as, upon the plaintiff's motion for a judgment on the issue of liability against him upon his failure to answer, granted the plaintiff leave to effectuate service pursuant to CPLR 308(5).
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The allegations on behalf of the defendant Nathan Botton in response to the plaintiff's motion for a judgment on the issue of liability against him upon his failure to answer were sufficient to warrant a hearing on his contention that the location where the summons was delivered was not his actual place of business, as alleged in the process server's affidavit (see, CPLR 308 [2]; Continental Hosts v. Levine, 170 A.D.2d 430, 565 N.Y.S.2d 222). The Supreme Court therefore erred in failing to hold a hearing on that issue. Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in sua sponte authorizing service pursuant to CPLR 308(5) without a showing that service pursuant to CPLR 308(1), (2) or (4) was impracticable (see, Porter v. Porter, 227 A.D.2d 538, 642 N.Y.S.2d 960; Axxon Corp. v. Xaba USA, 215 A.D.2d 517, 626 N.Y.S.2d 557; Preza v. Sever's Gourmet, 212 A.D.2d 765, 623 N.Y.S.2d 268).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 08, 1999
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)