Carmack v. Woolworth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carmack v. Woolworth

50 A.D.2d 516, 375 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12206

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 516 (Carmack v. Woolworth) 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

Carmack v. Woolworth, 50 A.D.2d 516, 375 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 14, [517]*5171975, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on all proffered grounds except the claim of lack of personal jurisdiction (which issue was referred to a Special Referee to hear and report), unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. On the record before us, Special Term was justified in refusing to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens; or for failure to join the now adult son of the parties in the action (Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d 123; Forman v Forman, 17 NY2d 274.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 14, [517]*5171975, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on all proffered grounds except the claim of lack of personal jurisdiction (which issue was referred to a Special Referee to hear and report), unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. On the record before us, Special Term was justified in refusing to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens; or for failure to join the now adult son of the parties in the action (Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d 123; Forman v Forman, 17 NY2d 274.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 516, 375 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmack-v-woolworth-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack