Macchia v. Russo
New York Court of Appeals
67 N.Y.2d. 592, 505 N.Y.S.2d 591, 496 N.E.2d 680 (1986)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
On February 27, 1975, Ralph Macchia (plaintiff) was injured while a passenger in a car driven by Salvatore Russo (defendant). On February 25, 1978, Macchia and a process server went to Salvatore’s home to attempt to serve Salvatore with a summons. When Macchia and the process server arrived at the Russo home, Salvatore Russo’s son, John Russo, was outside the home. The process server stated either “Mr. Russo?” or “Sal Russo?” (Macchia and the process server had different accounts on this score) and handed the summons to John. John asked Macchia what the papers were, to which the process server responded that John should read them. John then went into the house and gave the summons to Salvatore. Salvatore moved for summary judgment pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 308(1) on the ground of improper service of the summons. Macchia responded that Salvatore was properly served because (1) Salvatore received the summons in close temporal and geographic proximity to John’s receipt of the summons, (2) the process server acted reasonably, and (3) Salvatore was not prejudiced because he promptly received the summons. The supreme court denied Salvatore’s motion, but the appellate division reversed and dismissed the complaint. Macchia appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
