Freud v St. Agnes Cathedral School
2009 NY Slip Op 05943 [64 AD3d 678]
July 21, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, September 2, 2009


Tina Freud, Respondent,
v
St. Agnes Cathedral School,Appellant.

[*1]Mulholland, Minion & Roe, Williston Park, N.Y. (Christine M. Gibbons of counsel),for appellant.

Peter S. Thomas, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), entered October 21, 2008, which, after ahearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that on August 27, 2007 the plaintiff's process server visited the defendant'sschool and delivered the summons and complaint in this action to Patricia Wren, who wasemployed by the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground thatservice of process was invalid since Wren was only a secretary and not authorized to receiveservice of process on behalf of the defendant. At the hearing to determine the validity of serviceof process upon the defendant, the process server testified that she approached Wren, whom shebelieved to be a secretary, identified the summons and complaint, and asked Wren if she wasauthorized to accept service of the papers. According to the process server, Wren replied that shewas so authorized. Wren testified at the hearing that she was employed by the defendant as aclerk, but denied that she ever told the process server that she was authorized to accept service ofprocess on behalf of the defendant. After the hearing, the court denied the motion to dismiss.

Ordinarily, the hearing court's assessment of a witness's credibility is entitled to substantialdeference (see Ortiz v Jamwant, 305 AD2d 477 [2003]; McGuirk v Mugs Pub,250 AD2d 824, 825 [1998]; Carlin v Crum & Forster Ins. Co., 170 AD2d 251[1991]). Under these circumstances, we perceive no reason to disturb its determination on appeal(see Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265 [1980]). Mastro, J.P., Miller,Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.