Colletta v. Lilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colletta v. Lilly

86 A.D.2d 856, 447 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15480

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 856 (Colletta v. Lilly) 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

Colletta v. Lilly, 86 A.D.2d 856, 447 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15480 (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, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), dated October 1, 1980, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate an order of attachment and dismiss the action. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The affirmative defense pleaded, that “[t]he jurisdiction in the instant case, if any is in Rem”, is not the “sufficiently particularized” objection to quasi in rem jurisdiction necessary to preserve the objection and thereby obtain dismissal based on a retroactive application oí Rush v Savchuk (444 US 320) (see Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 489). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, 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, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), dated October 1, 1980, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate an order of attachment and dismiss the action. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The affirmative defense pleaded, that “[t]he jurisdiction in the instant case, if any is in Rem”, is not the “sufficiently particularized” objection to quasi in rem jurisdiction necessary to preserve the objection and thereby obtain dismissal based on a retroactive application oí Rush v Savchuk (444 US 320) (see Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 489). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 856, 447 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colletta-v-lilly-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack