Antalek v. Elliott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antalek v. Elliott

26 A.D.2d 716, 271 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3770

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 716 (Antalek v. Elliott) 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

Antalek v. Elliott, 26 A.D.2d 716, 271 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, Schenectady County, denying defendant’s motion that he be relieved from the terms of a default judgment, on the ground that purported-substituted service of the summons pursuant to order granted July 9, 1963. was not made until August 12, 1963, and thus not “ within twenty days ” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 231) whereby, according to the section cited, the order became “ inoperative ”. These facts are not disputed. That a jurisdictional ground other than this was that urged on the motion to relieve (CPLR 5015, subd. 4) does not, of course, foreclose appellant’s additional jurisdictional objection here, even if it be considered that the latter was not before the Special Term by reason of the reference in the moving affidavit to the critical dates involved. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion granted, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, Schenectady County, denying defendant’s motion that he be relieved from the terms of a default judgment, on the ground that purported-substituted service of the summons pursuant to order granted July 9, 1963. was not made until August 12, 1963, and thus not “ within twenty days ” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 231) whereby, according to the section cited, the order became “ inoperative ”. These facts are not disputed. That a jurisdictional ground other than this was that urged on the motion to relieve (CPLR 5015, subd. 4) does not, of course, foreclose appellant’s additional jurisdictional objection here, even if it be considered that the latter was not before the Special Term by reason of the reference in the moving affidavit to the critical dates involved. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion granted, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 716, 271 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antalek-v-elliott-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack