| Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v Palmieri |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00202 [113 AD3d 648] |
| January 15, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc., et al.,Respondents, v Paul Palmieri et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Michael B. Schulman & Associates, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (David R. Weiner ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for abuse of process, the defendantsappeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated March16, 2011, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, deniedtheir motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground oflack of personal jurisdiction.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages,inter alia, for abuse of process. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) todismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that neitherof the two defendants was properly served. Following a hearing at which the processserver testified for the plaintiffs, and an employee of one of the defendants testified forthe defendants, the Supreme Court found that service had been properly made on thedefendants, and denied their motion.
In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, this Court's authority is as broadas the hearing court's authority, and this Court may render the judgment it findswarranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the hearing court had theadvantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional ParkAssoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d715, 716 [2011]). Here, the hearing court's determination that the defendants wereproperly served was supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing (seeLopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d at 716; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]),and we discern no basis for disturbing that determination.
The defendants' remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Lott andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.