Cuccia v. H.M. Weiner & Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cuccia v. H.M. Weiner & Associates

234 A.D.2d 26, 650 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12234

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 26 (Cuccia v. H.M. Weiner & Associates) 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

Cuccia v. H.M. Weiner & Associates, 234 A.D.2d 26, 650 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about November 14, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment and to restore the matter to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The failure to serve a summons with the complaint in this matter is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the action (CPLR 304; cf., CPLR 305 [b]; Siegel, NY Prac § 60, at 75; § 62 [2d ed]). Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed. In light of the foregoing, we do not reach plaintiff’s remaining [27]*27contentions. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about November 14, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment and to restore the matter to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The failure to serve a summons with the complaint in this matter is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the action (CPLR 304; cf., CPLR 305 [b]; Siegel, NY Prac § 60, at 75; § 62 [2d ed]). Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed. In light of the foregoing, we do not reach plaintiff’s remaining [27]*27contentions. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 26, 650 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuccia-v-hm-weiner-associates-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack