De Siervo v. Clifford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Siervo v. Clifford

126 A.D.2d 512, 510 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41652

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 512 (De Siervo v. Clifford) 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 Siervo v. Clifford, 126 A.D.2d 512, 510 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated August 9, 1985, which, inter alia, granted so much of the plaintiff’s cross motion as sought to strike from the defendants’ answer the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to the defendant William Clifford, and failed to grant so much of the defendants’ motion as sought dismissal of the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Elsie C. Clifford, upon the finding that personal jurisdiction was not acquired over her.

Ordered that the order is modified, by adding a provision thereto that so much of the defendants’ motion as sought dismissal of the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Elsie C. Clifford is granted. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find no reason to disturb Special Term’s determination that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendant William Clifford. However, in light of Special Term’s determination that personal jurisdiction had not been acquired over the defendant Elsie C. Clifford, so much of the defendants’ motion as sought dismissal of the complaint as against her [513]*513should have been granted. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated August 9, 1985, which, inter alia, granted so much of the plaintiff’s cross motion as sought to strike from the defendants’ answer the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to the defendant William Clifford, and failed to grant so much of the defendants’ motion as sought dismissal of the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Elsie C. Clifford, upon the finding that personal jurisdiction was not acquired over her.

Ordered that the order is modified, by adding a provision thereto that so much of the defendants’ motion as sought dismissal of the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Elsie C. Clifford is granted. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find no reason to disturb Special Term’s determination that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendant William Clifford. However, in light of Special Term’s determination that personal jurisdiction had not been acquired over the defendant Elsie C. Clifford, so much of the defendants’ motion as sought dismissal of the complaint as against her [513]*513should have been granted. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 512, 510 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-siervo-v-clifford-nyappdiv-1987.