Bulterman v. Richmond Racquet Club

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bulterman v. Richmond Racquet Club

87 A.D.2d 858, 450 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16338

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

DecidedApril 19, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 858 (Bulterman v. Richmond Racquet Club) 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

Bulterman v. Richmond Racquet Club, 87 A.D.2d 858, 450 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Conhagen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rubin, J.), dated June 30,1980, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against defendant Conhagen. The record reveals that the plaintiff has failed to raise or establish a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant Conhagen may be estopped from asserting the affirmative defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and the Statute of Limitations (cf. Fotochrome, Inc. v American Ins. Co., 26 AD2d 634, affd 23 NY2d 889; Adelman v Friedman, 80 Mise 2d 946, affd 83 Mise 2d 802). As defendant Conhagen was never properly served (CPLR 308, 313) jurisdiction over him was never obtained and the complaint must therefore be dismissed as against him. Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Conhagen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rubin, J.), dated June 30,1980, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against defendant Conhagen. The record reveals that the plaintiff has failed to raise or establish a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant Conhagen may be estopped from asserting the affirmative defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and the Statute of Limitations (cf. Fotochrome, Inc. v American Ins. Co., 26 AD2d 634, affd 23 NY2d 889; Adelman v Friedman, 80 Mise 2d 946, affd 83 Mise 2d 802). As defendant Conhagen was never properly served (CPLR 308, 313) jurisdiction over him was never obtained and the complaint must therefore be dismissed as against him. Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 858, 450 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulterman-v-richmond-racquet-club-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack