Case ID: ad_256/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Mazer, Respondent, v. Max Gerstinblith, Appellant.
    First Department,
    April 21, 1939.
    
      J. Frederic Rosenfeld of counsel [Goldman & Frier, attorneys], for the appellant.
    
      Francis Finkelhor, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

An order for substituted service of a summons upon a natural person must direct that service be made at his residence except in an instance where such residence cannot be found. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 231.)

Upon the proof presented, the Special Term was justified in finding that the address at which substituted service upon defendant was directed by the court’s order, was, in fact, the defendant’s residence. (Cf. Johnson v. Diamond, 208 App. Div. 639.)

The order should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.