Product Image

TRANSCRIPT #12

$199.99 – $599.99

$599.99

Add To Cart

-Validity of CPLR 308(2) substituted (deliver-and-mail) service.
-Validity of CPLR 308(4) substituted (affix-and-mail) service.
-Service at apartment building with doorman. Defendant’s apartment on 29th floor.
-Process server unavailable. Admissibility of process server’s affidavits of service under business records exception to hearsay rule.
-One affidavit avers 308(4) service by affixing papers to defendant’s apartment door; second affidavit alleges deliver-and-mail service the next day via doorman in vestibule at defendant’s building.
-Plaintiff’s counsel produced two members of his law firm as fact witnesses re unavailability of process server and due diligence efforts undertaken to locate him.
-Whether production of two attorneys for plaintiff as fact witnesses violated advocate- witness rule. Whether advocate-witness prohibition applies in pretrial context of a Traverse Hearing.
-Original affidavits of service not produced at Traverse Hearing. Whether testimony of two attorneys from plaintiff’s firm to authenticate photocopy of process server’s affidavit barred as inadmissible hearsay. Colloquy: CPLR and case law requirements re admissibility of photocopy of affidavit of service; applicability of “best evidence” rule.
-Due diligence efforts undertaken by plaintiff’s counsel to locate unavailable process server. Admissibility of evidence that process server unavailable due to criminal conviction/incarceration to impeach veracity of affidavits of service.
-Defendant testifies that he never saw any legal papers affixed to his apartment door; never received any papers from the building doorman. Point-by-point denial of averments in affidavits of service.
-Preclusion of defendant’s witnesses. Two doormen from defendant’s building appeared, intending to testify that they rejected papers, advising process server that management policy prohibited them from accepting service on defendant’s behalf. Both doormen precluded from testifying due to defendant’s failure to exchange their names per court’s pre-hearing directive.
-Colloquy: Whether defendant waived defective service of process by serving Notice of Appearance without objecting to service (CPLR 320).

-Plaintiff’s counsel (direct examination; cross-examination; redirect exam; recross exam)
-Plaintiff’s co-counsel (direct examination; cross-examination)
-Voir dire examination of plaintiff’s counsel re authenticity of copy of affidavit of service.
– Voir dire examination of plaintiff’s co-counsel re authenticity of copy of affidavit of service
-Defendant (direct examination; cross-examination; redirect examination).