Schenkman v. Schenkman — 284 A.D. 1068

Majority

p. 1068

Gertrude Schenkman, Respondent, v. Harry Schenkman, Appellant.

In an action for separation, defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate service of the summons and complaint. After a hearing, Special Term held that (1) defendant was served with process; (2) defendant had possession of. the summons and complaint, had knowledge that he was a named defendant in the action, but induced the process server to accept its

p. 1069

return on the fraudulent representation that he was not the defendant; (3) these facts amounted to delivering the process and leaving it with defendant sufficient to constitute effective service. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Holán, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur. [ 206 Misc. 660 .]

Cases cited

Schenkman v. Schenkman 206 Misc. 660 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1954-10-28 p. 1069