Calabrese v. Albert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calabrese v. Albert

87 A.D.2d 834, 450 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16298

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

DecidedApril 12, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 834 (Calabrese v. Albert) 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

Calabrese v. Albert, 87 A.D.2d 834, 450 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated September 30, 1980, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion denied, and complaint reinstated. The objections to personal jurisdiction were not the sufficiently particularized objections to the assertion of quasi in rem jurisdiction necessary for a dismissal based on retroactive application of Rush v Sauchuk (444 US 320) (see Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 489, n 11; Kalman v Newman, 80 AD2d 116, 126). Titone, J. P., Weinstein, O’Connor and Rubin, 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated September 30, 1980, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion denied, and complaint reinstated. The objections to personal jurisdiction were not the sufficiently particularized objections to the assertion of quasi in rem jurisdiction necessary for a dismissal based on retroactive application of Rush v Sauchuk (444 US 320) (see Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 489, n 11; Kalman v Newman, 80 AD2d 116, 126). Titone, J. P., Weinstein, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 834, 450 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calabrese-v-albert-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack