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.
Citimortgage, Inc., respondent, v. Moshe Feder, appellant, et al., defendants.
Argued—March 20, 2020
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Moshe Feder appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gerald E. Loehr, J.), entered November 15, 2017. The order denied that defendant's motion, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage against, among others, the defendant Moshe Feder (hereinafter the defendant). The defendant defaulted in answering the complaint.
The defendant moved, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, where evidence was submitted that the defendant was served pursuant to CPLR 308(2), and the defendant's testimony in response exhibited significant inconsistencies and gaps in memory, denied the defendant's motion, citing the defendant's lack of credibility. “The Supreme Court's credibility determinations following a hearing are entitled to substantial deference on appeal” (Teitelbaum v North Short–Long Is. Jewish Health System, Inc., 160 AD3d 1009, 1011; see Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34 AD3d 536, 538). Here, we discern no basis for disturbing the findings of the Supreme Court.
The parties' remaining contentions are rendered academic in light of our determination.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, BALKIN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2018–02309 (Index No. 9272 /09)
Decided: September 16, 2020
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)