Amigo Travel Reynoso Agency Corp. v. Monohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amigo Travel Reynoso Agency Corp. v. Monohan

138 A.D.3d 1116, 28 N.Y.S.3d 914

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 27, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 1116 (Amigo Travel Reynoso Agency Corp. v. Monohan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amigo Travel Reynoso Agency Corp. v. Monohan, 138 A.D.3d 1116, 28 N.Y.S.3d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of Barbara Monohan, Commissioner of the Westchester County Taxi & Limousine Commission, confirming a determination of an administrative law judge dated April 16, 2013, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner violated various Laws of Westchester County, and imposing a fine, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), dated March 3, 2015, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner failed, at a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that service upon the respondent was proper. There[1117]*1117fore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Khodeeva v Chi Chung Yip, 84 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2011]; Bartow v Lugo, 66 AD3d 936, 937 [2009]).

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of Barbara Monohan, Commissioner of the Westchester County Taxi & Limousine Commission, confirming a determination of an administrative law judge dated April 16, 2013, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner violated various Laws of Westchester County, and imposing a fine, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), dated March 3, 2015, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner failed, at a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that service upon the respondent was proper. There[1117]*1117fore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Khodeeva v Chi Chung Yip, 84 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2011]; Bartow v Lugo, 66 AD3d 936, 937 [2009]).

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 1116, 28 N.Y.S.3d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amigo-travel-reynoso-agency-corp-v-monohan-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack