| Bank of Am., N.A. v Grufferman |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03436 [117 AD3d 508] |
| May 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| Bank of America, N.A., Respondent, v HowardGrufferman et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
Michael Medina and Donald B. Cohen, New York, for appellants.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, New York (Tanya D. Bosi of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment of foreclosure and sale, New York County (Eileen Rakower, J.), enteredApril 17, 2013, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 10,2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, following a traversehearing, denied defendants-appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack ofjurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the above orderunanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from thejudgment.
Service upon the doorman of defendants' apartment building was proper under CPLR308 (2), given that the process server was denied access to defendants' apartment (seeF.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen, 41 NY2d 794, 797-798 [1977]). Thecourt credited the process server's testimony that the doorman denied access todefendants' apartment, and matters of credibility are best determined by the motion court(see Matter of Corcoran [Ardra Ins. Co.], 176 AD2d 508, 508 [1st Dept1991]).
The motion court providently exercised its discretion to deny defendants' request toadmit [*2]the doorman's logbook into evidence (see Montes v New York City Tr.Auth., 46 AD3d 121, 123 [1st Dept 2007]). In any event, even if the court erred,the error was harmless in light of the court's credibility determinations, which aresupported by the record. Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Freedman andRichter, JJ.