Cohen v. Haberkorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Haberkorn

30 A.D.2d 530, 291 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071

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

DecidedMay 6, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 530 (Cohen v. Haberkorn) 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

Cohen v. Haberkorn, 30 A.D.2d 530, 291 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 6, 1966, as, upon reargument, granted defendants’ motion to vacate, for lack of jurisdiction, a default judgment entered against them. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without prejudice to any motion which defendants may be advised to make \o open their default, upon a proper showing that the default was excusable and that a meritorious defense exists. A nondomieiliary who enters this State to receive medical treatment thereby “ transacts * * * business within the state,” within the meaning of CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1), and is, therefore, amenable under that statute to the jurisdiction of our courts in an action by the physician to recover the value of the services rendered; and in personam jurisdiction may be acquired over such nondomiciliaries by service of process without the State (CPLR 313). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiff, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 6, 1966, as, upon reargument, granted defendants’ motion to vacate, for lack of jurisdiction, a default judgment entered against them. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without prejudice to any motion which defendants may be advised to make \o open their default, upon a proper showing that the default was excusable and that a meritorious defense exists. A nondomieiliary who enters this State to receive medical treatment thereby “ transacts * * * business within the state,” within the meaning of CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1), and is, therefore, amenable under that statute to the jurisdiction of our courts in an action by the physician to recover the value of the services rendered; and in personam jurisdiction may be acquired over such nondomiciliaries by service of process without the State (CPLR 313). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 530, 291 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-haberkorn-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack