Darienzo v. Selbern Shoe Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darienzo v. Selbern Shoe Co.

41 A.D.2d 736, 341 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4968

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 736 (Darienzo v. Selbern Shoe Co.) 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

Darienzo v. Selbern Shoe Co., 41 A.D.2d 736, 341 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a.personal injury action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 28, 1971, which denied its motion to dismiss all the causes- of action in the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over its person (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par; 8), without prejudice to. interposition of the jurisdictional objection in its answer. Order reversed, without costs, and motion remitted to Special Term for a hearing solely on [737]*737the question of jurisdiction and a new determination. The motion papers presented sharp questions of fact concerning the essential jurisdictional requirements of CPLR 302. It is our opinion that in such a situation it is preferable to order an immediate hearing on the factual questions, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [c]), rather than await the trial for determination thereof. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a.personal injury action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 28, 1971, which denied its motion to dismiss all the causes- of action in the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over its person (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par; 8), without prejudice to. interposition of the jurisdictional objection in its answer. Order reversed, without costs, and motion remitted to Special Term for a hearing solely on [737]*737the question of jurisdiction and a new determination. The motion papers presented sharp questions of fact concerning the essential jurisdictional requirements of CPLR 302. It is our opinion that in such a situation it is preferable to order an immediate hearing on the factual questions, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [c]), rather than await the trial for determination thereof. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 736, 341 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darienzo-v-selbern-shoe-co-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack