Carlo v. Carlo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carlo v. Carlo

110 A.D.2d 806, 488 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48712

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

DecidedApril 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 806 (Carlo v. Carlo) 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

Carlo v. Carlo, 110 A.D.2d 806, 488 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff moved to enforce a certain provision of a divorce decree, by order to show cause dated November 24,1981, which required service of a copy of said order to show cause and supporting papers to be made upon the defendant board at Two World Trade Center, New York, by certified mail, return receipt requested, on or before November 30, 1981. Upon review of the record, we disagree with Special Term’s determination that [807]*807“service as so directed appears to have been so effectuated” upon the board. Accordingly, we find that jurisdiction over the board was never properly obtained.

Moreover plaintiff failed to serve the Attorney-General, who represents the board, as required under CPLR 2214 (d). That defect is likewise jurisdictional (Randall v Toll, 72 Misc 2d 305).

In concluding, we note that the State Insurance Fund is the carrier liable for payment of the compensation benefits awarded to defendant Peter De Carlo, which are at issue in this proceeding. Although plaintiff seeks to recover payment of a portion of those benefits, she failed to join the State Insurance Fund as a party to this proceeding. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiff moved to enforce a certain provision of a divorce decree, by order to show cause dated November 24,1981, which required service of a copy of said order to show cause and supporting papers to be made upon the defendant board at Two World Trade Center, New York, by certified mail, return receipt requested, on or before November 30, 1981. Upon review of the record, we disagree with Special Term’s determination that [807]*807“service as so directed appears to have been so effectuated” upon the board. Accordingly, we find that jurisdiction over the board was never properly obtained.

Moreover plaintiff failed to serve the Attorney-General, who represents the board, as required under CPLR 2214 (d). That defect is likewise jurisdictional (Randall v Toll, 72 Misc 2d 305).

In concluding, we note that the State Insurance Fund is the carrier liable for payment of the compensation benefits awarded to defendant Peter De Carlo, which are at issue in this proceeding. Although plaintiff seeks to recover payment of a portion of those benefits, she failed to join the State Insurance Fund as a party to this proceeding. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 806, 488 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlo-v-carlo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack