| Doubletree Hotel Tarrytown v Chacko |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01578 [115 AD3d 703] |
| March 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Doubletree Hotel Tarrytown,Respondent, v Kurien Chacko, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael M. Cohen, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendantappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), enteredJune 28, 2013, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, ineffect, denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack ofpersonal jurisdiction.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In reviewing a determination made by a hearing court, the power of this Court is asbroad as that of the hearing court and it may render the determination it finds warrantedby the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantageof seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional ParkAssoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Bartow v Lugo, 66 AD3d936, 937 [2009]; Mastroianni v Rallye Glen Cove, LLC, 59 AD3d 686, 687[2009]; Hall v Sinclaire, 35AD3d 660 [2006]). The plaintiff's process server, who refreshed his recollectionwith reliable contemporaneous records, unequivocally testified that he delivered thesummons and complaint to the defendant. The inconsistencies between the description ofthe defendant and the defendant's appearance in court almost three years later, and thelocation as stated in the affidavit of service and the defendant's unsubstantiatedallegations regarding the description of the house where he was served with process,were not significant (see Rowlan v Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 100 AD2d 844, 845[1984]; cf. Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc., 117 AD2d 135, 139 [1986]). Therecord in this case supports the hearing court's determination that the testimony of theprocess server was more credible than that of the defendant, as well as the hearing court'sconclusion that the defendant was properly served with process (see Shaw Funding, L.P. vSamuel, 101 AD3d 1100 [2012]; King v Gil, 69 AD3d 678 [2010]; Ahrens v Chisena, 40 AD3d787, 788 [2007]; Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34AD3d 536, 538 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.