Summarize only the relevant the facts in your own words – do not copy the words from the opinion.

PLEASE FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY!!!!!!!
I WILL UPLOAD CHAPTER 10. THE QUESTION THAT MUST BE ANSWERED IS ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 10 THE QUESTION IS THE WIFE IN A DIVORCE ACTION HAS HER HUSBAND SERVED BY HER HUSBAND’S 21-YEAR-OLD SON. IS THIS PROPER SERVICE. YOU MUST LOOK AT CHAPTER 10 IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. ALSO, THE RUBRIC MUST BE FOLLOWED!!!!! WHICH I WILL UPLOAD FOR THE FIRST PART OF THE ESSAY.
THE SECOND PART OF THE ASSIGNMENT IS:
2. On the posted service of process case in this module, write the facts, issue, decision and reason. Use correct, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure. See rubric.
Facts: Summarize only the relevant the facts in your own words – do not copy the words from the opinion.
Issue: Write the legal question the court had to answer: start your sentence with “The issue was whether . . . .”
Decision: Who won
Reason: Quote the relevant law the court relied on. Please do not copy and paste all the law. Read the decision carefully and decide which law the court relied on.
The Writing Videos are posted under Module named Miscellaneous Information
DO NOT COPY THE JUDGE’S WORDS – WRITE THIS IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
View Rubric
Some Rubric
Some Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
Descriiption of criterion
view longer descriiption
5 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
/ 5 pts
THE CASE IS THIS:
Mizerek v. Rosenfeld, 162 A.D.3d 1005 (2018)
80 N.Y.S.3d 358, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 04711
© 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
162 A.D.3d 1005
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second
Department, New York.
Marlena MIZEREK, respondent,
v.
Chaim S. ROSENFELD, appellant, et al.,
defendants.
2016–10069
|
(Index No. 507250/15)
|
Argued—February 27, 2018
|
June 27, 2018
DECISION & ORDER
*1005 In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for
assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, the defendant Chaim S. Rosenfeld appeals from
an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kathy J.
King, J.), dated August 9, 2016. The order, insofar as
appealed from, denied, without a hearing, that branch of
that defendant’s cross motion which was, in effect,
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint
insofar as asserted against *1006 him for lack of personal
jurisdiction based upon improper service of process
pursuant to CPLR 308(2).
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed
from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the
matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County,
for a hearing to determine whether the defendant Chaim
S. Rosenfeld was properly served with process pursuant
to CPLR 308(2), and thereafter for a new determination of
that branch of that defendant’s cross motion which was, in
effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the
complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of
personal jurisdiction based on improper service of
process pursuant to CPLR 308(2).
In June 2014, the plaintiff allegedly was, inter alia,
physically assaulted by the defendant Chaim S.
Rosenfeld. In June 2015, the plaintiff commenced this
action, among other things, to recover damages for
assault, battery, and intentional infliction **360 of
emotional distress against Rosenfeld and others. In an
affidavit of service, the plaintiff’s process server averred
that he served Rosenfeld with the summons and complaint
on October 1, 2015, at 1:45 p.m., by leaving the papers
with Schia Rosenfeld (hereinafter Schia), a person of
suitable age and discretion at Rosenfeld’s apartment in
Brooklyn. The affidavit stated that an additional copy of
the papers were mailed the same day to Rosenfeld’s
apartment.
When Rosenfeld failed to answer the complaint, the
plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment
against him. Rosenfeld cross-moved, in effect, pursuant to
CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as
asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction
based upon improper service of process pursuant to
CPLR 308(2), or, in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff
to accept his late answer. Rosenfeld argued that, at the
time of the claimed service, he, his wife, and his infant
son were away from the apartment visiting his wife’s
family. Rosenfeld contended that the only people who
lived with him in the apartment were his wife and infant
son, that no one else had access to their apartment, and
that no one was staying or visiting his apartment at the
time of the purported service.
Without conducting a hearing on the issue of service, the
Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion, denied that
branch of the cross motion which was, in effect, pursuant
to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as
asserted against Rosenfeld for lack of personal
jurisdiction based upon improper service of process
pursuant to CPLR 308(2), and granted that branch of the
cross motion which was to compel the plaintiff to accept
Rosenfeld’s late answer.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]“A process server’s affidavit of service
constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service”
(Scarano v. Scarano, 63 A.D.3d 716, 716, 880 N.Y.S.2d
682; see American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v. Gbede,
127 A.D.3d 1004, 1005, 5 N.Y.S.3d 879; Velez v.
Forcelli, 125 A.D.3d 643, 644, 3 N.Y.S.3d 84; Servpro
Indus., Inc. v. Anghel, 121 A.D.3d 665, 665–666, 993
N.Y.S.2d 724; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Gaines, 104
A.D.3d 885, 886, 962 N.Y.S.2d 316). A defendant may
raise a question of fact about the affidavit of service by
submitting a sworn denial of receipt of service (see *1007
Matter of TNT Petroleum, Inc. v. Sea Petroleum, Inc., 40
A.D.3d 771, 771–772, 833 N.Y.S.2d 906; Elm Mgt. Corp.
v. Sprung, 33 A.D.3d 753, 754–755, 823 N.Y.S.2d 187).
However, a mere conclusory denial of service will not be
sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit (see

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more