Community School District No. 13 v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Community School District No. 13 v. Goodman

127 A.D.2d 837, 511 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53415

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 837 (Community School District No. 13 v. Goodman) 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

Community School District No. 13 v. Goodman, 127 A.D.2d 837, 511 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding purportedly brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 but properly treated as one to review the penalty imposed by a hearing panel pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5), the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated July 3, 1985, which, upon the respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over him, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that personal jurisdiction was not obtained over the respondent. The petitioners’ attempted service of process upon the respondent pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) must fail as the person "of suitable age and discretion” with whom the petitioners left the papers was Dr. J. Jerome Harris, the Superintendent of the petitioner Community School District No. 13. While not named as a party, in a case such as this, the interests of Dr. Harris, Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner community school district, must be considered to be adverse to those of the respondent, and as such it would be inappropriate for him to act as the recipient of service for him (see, City of New York v Chemical Bank, 122 Misc 2d 104). In reaching this decision we note in passing the many irregularities in the papers served by the petitioners, and further that at all pertinent times the respondent was in the petitioners’ employ, and available for personal service on a daily basis in the petitioner Community School District No. 13’s own office. In light of all the above circumstances, Special Term properly found that service was improper, and jurisdiction over the respondent was not obtained. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding purportedly brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 but properly treated as one to review the penalty imposed by a hearing panel pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5), the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated July 3, 1985, which, upon the respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over him, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that personal jurisdiction was not obtained over the respondent. The petitioners’ attempted service of process upon the respondent pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) must fail as the person "of suitable age and discretion” with whom the petitioners left the papers was Dr. J. Jerome Harris, the Superintendent of the petitioner Community School District No. 13. While not named as a party, in a case such as this, the interests of Dr. Harris, Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner community school district, must be considered to be adverse to those of the respondent, and as such it would be inappropriate for him to act as the recipient of service for him (see, City of New York v Chemical Bank, 122 Misc 2d 104). In reaching this decision we note in passing the many irregularities in the papers served by the petitioners, and further that at all pertinent times the respondent was in the petitioners’ employ, and available for personal service on a daily basis in the petitioner Community School District No. 13’s own office. In light of all the above circumstances, Special Term properly found that service was improper, and jurisdiction over the respondent was not obtained. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 837, 511 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/community-school-district-no-13-v-goodman-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack