De Palma v. R. H. Macy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Palma v. R. H. Macy, Inc.

38 A.D.2d 830, 329 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5434

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 830 (De Palma v. R. H. Macy, Inc.) 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

De Palma v. R. H. Macy, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 830, 329 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence and breach of warranty action to recover damages for personal injuries, loss of services, etc., defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals from three orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, the first dated September 21, 1970 granting a motion by third-party defendant Marlboro Manufacturing Company (the respondent) to vacate the service of the third-party summons and complaint, the second dated February 11, 1971 denying appellant’s motion to reargue said third-party defendant’s motion, and the third dated May 20, 1971 denying appellant’s motion to vacate its default upon a prior motion by said third-party defendant, as a defendant in the main action, to vacate the service of plaintiff’s summons and complaint. Orders of September 21, 1970 and May 20, 1971 reversed, and motions which resulted in said orders remitted to Special Term for a hearing as to the nature and extent of the business and revenue derived by respondent from this State and for determination, following the hearing, whether such activity was sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the person of respondent. In our opinion the record does not provide a sufficient factual basis to determine the question of jurisdiction over respondent. Appeal from order of February 11, 1971 dismissed. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. (Matter of Robinson, 30 A D 2d 702.) Appellant is awarded a single bill of $10 costs and disbursements to cover all the appeals. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence and breach of warranty action to recover damages for personal injuries, loss of services, etc., defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals from three orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, the first dated September 21, 1970 granting a motion by third-party defendant Marlboro Manufacturing Company (the respondent) to vacate the service of the third-party summons and complaint, the second dated February 11, 1971 denying appellant’s motion to reargue said third-party defendant’s motion, and the third dated May 20, 1971 denying appellant’s motion to vacate its default upon a prior motion by said third-party defendant, as a defendant in the main action, to vacate the service of plaintiff’s summons and complaint. Orders of September 21, 1970 and May 20, 1971 reversed, and motions which resulted in said orders remitted to Special Term for a hearing as to the nature and extent of the business and revenue derived by respondent from this State and for determination, following the hearing, whether such activity was sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the person of respondent. In our opinion the record does not provide a sufficient factual basis to determine the question of jurisdiction over respondent. Appeal from order of February 11, 1971 dismissed. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. (Matter of Robinson, 30 A D 2d 702.) Appellant is awarded a single bill of $10 costs and disbursements to cover all the appeals. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 830, 329 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-palma-v-r-h-macy-inc-nyappdiv-1972.