JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Szajna, 72 A.D.3d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Szajna, 72 A.D.3d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the plaintiff was not required to attempt to serve the defendant at his workplace at p. 903 ✓
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: US Bank National Ass'n v. Harding (nyappdiv, 2015-01-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) US Bank National Ass'n v. Harding
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Harding, he was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Florestal v. Coleman-Florestal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Here, the affidavits of the plaintiffs process server, wherein he attested that he made numerous attempts to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at her residence at different times on different days, including two Saturdays, a weekday evening, and a weekday morning, were sufficient to establish, prima facie, the due diligence requirement (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cherot, 102 AD3d 768 [2013]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Since there was no indication that White worked Saturdays or that his workplace was readily ascertainable, “the plaintiff was not required to attempt to serve the defendant at his workplace” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Since there was no indication that White worked Saturdays or that his workplace was readily ascertainable, “the plaintiff was not required to attempt to serve the defendant at his workplace” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cherot
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the process server’s uncontradicted testimony that he made three attempts to effect personal service at the appellant’s residence at different times on different days, including a Saturday, were sufficient to satisfy the “due diligence” requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; Farias v Simon, 73 AD3d 569, 570 [2010]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]; County of Nassau v Gallagher, 43 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2007]; Lemberger v Khan, 18 AD3d 447 [2005]; Johnson v Waters, 291 AD2d 481 [2002];…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cherot
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the process server’s uncontradicted testimony that he made three attempts to effect personal service at the appellant’s residence at different times on different days, including a Saturday, were sufficient to satisfy the “due diligence” requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; Farias v Simon, 73 AD3d 569, 570 [2010]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]; County of Nassau v Gallagher, 43 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2007]; Lemberger v Khan, 18 AD3d 447 [2005]; Johnson v Waters, 291 AD2d 481 [2002];…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lopez v. DePietro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
We further note that the hearing court properly determined that the process server’s attempts to personally serve the defendant at his residence satisfied the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see State of New York v Mappa, 78 AD3d 926 [2010]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]; County of Nassau v Gallagher, 43 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2007]; Akler v Chisena, 40 AD3d 559 [2007]; Lemberger v Khan, 18 AD3d 447 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Mappa
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, the affidavit, which stated that the process server attempted to serve Mappa at his dwelling at different times and on different days, was sufficient to meet the “due diligence” requirement of CPLR 308 (4) (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]; Estate of Waterman v Jones, 46 AD3d 63, 66 [2007]; County of Nassau v Gallagher, 43 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2007]; Johnson v Waters, 291 AD2d 481 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hernandez v. Mueller
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2010 · confidence medium
The court will assume that plaintiff does not have a business address for Luis Hernandez, and that the attempts at personal delivery constitute “due diligence” (see CPLR 308 [4]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Szajna, 72 AD3d 902, 903 [2d Dept 2010]; Federal Natl.
cited Cited "see" J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Enriquez
E.D.N.Y · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Id.; see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Szajna, 898 N.Y.S.2d 524 (N.Y.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
v.
Claude Michael Szajna
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 20, 2010.
72 A.D.3d 902
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated March 31, 2009, which denied his motion pursuant to CELR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of the same[*903] court dated April 28, 2005, entered upon his default in appearing or answering, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $21,448.44.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The process server retained by the plaintiff made three attempts to serve the defendant at his dwelling. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the three attempts to serve him at his dwelling at different times and on different days, including an attempt on an early weekday morning and an attempt during midday Saturday, were sufficient to constitute “due diligence” within the meaning of CPLR 308 (4) (see County of Nassau v Gallagher, 43 AD3d 972, 973-974 [2007]; Johnson v Waters, 291 AD2d 481 [2002]; Matos v Knibbs, 186 AD2d 725 [1992]; Mitchell v Mendez, 107 AD2d 737, 738 [1985]). Since there was no indication that the defendant worked Saturdays or that his workplace was readily ascertainable, the plaintiff was not required to attempt to serve the defendant at his workplace (see Johnson v Waters, 291 AD2d 481 [2002]; Matos v Knibbs, 186 AD2d 725 [1992]; Mitchell v Mendez, 107 AD2d at 738; cf. Pizzolo v Monaco, 186 AD2d 727 [1992]). Accordingly, the process server properly resorted to service of process pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), and the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment for lack of jurisdiction was properly denied. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.