Competello v. Giordano

415 N.E.2d 965, 51 N.Y.2d 904, 434 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2750
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 11, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 415 N.E.2d 965 (Competello v. Giordano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Competello v. Giordano, 415 N.E.2d 965, 51 N.Y.2d 904, 434 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2750 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiffs’ motion to strike the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction should be granted, and the certified question is answered in the negative. Defendant waived the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by making a motion under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) without including his jurisdictional objection (CPLR 3211, subd [e]). Defendant’s assertion that the motion was a nullity for purposes of this provision because, pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court of Kings County (22 NYCRR 752.11 [d]), the failure to submit the order constituted an abandonment of the motion, is without merit. The purpose of the waiver provision of CPLR 3211 (subd [e]) is to prevent the defendant from wasting both the “court’s or the plaintiff’s time on any 3211 motion on any ground at all unless on that motion he joins his jurisdictional ground” (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3211:59, p 63). The legislative purpose of this provision may not be contravened by defendant’s self-serving act of failing to enter the order. Moreover, although defendant’s waiver of personal jurisdiction was not raised at Special Term, this court may consider the question on appeal because the issue is presented on the record, was raised at the Appellate Division and is conclusive (see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court Of Appeals, § 162).

[906]*906Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

Sabr Chems. Group, LLC v. Northeast Chems., Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 05906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Coombs
2020 NY Slip Op 07039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Gliklad v. Cherney
97 A.D.3d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Washington v. Palanzo
192 Misc. 2d 577 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Brown v. City of New York
264 A.D.2d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Farkas v. Tarrytown Lumber, Inc.
133 A.D.2d 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Russell v. Arthur Trask Co.
125 A.D.2d 136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Montcalm Publishing Corp. v. Pustorino
125 A.D.2d 188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Osserman v. Osserman
92 A.D.2d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Schoonmaker v. Ford Motor Co.
79 A.D.2d 1067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
415 N.E.2d 965, 51 N.Y.2d 904, 434 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/competello-v-giordano-ny-1980.