DeFilippo v. Plaza Sea, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeFilippo v. Plaza Sea, Inc.

278 A.D.2d 445, 717 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 445 (DeFilippo v. Plaza Sea, 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

DeFilippo v. Plaza Sea, Inc., 278 A.D.2d 445, 717 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cu-sick, J.), entered August 11, 1999, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Ahmed “Sam” Elsayed on the ground that jurisdiction was not acquired over that defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff failed to comply with CPLR 308 (2), the purported service of the summons was ineffective to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant Ahmed “Sam” Elsayed (see, Macchia v Russo, 67 NY2d 592; Feinstein v Bergner, 48 NY2d 234; Citibank v Harris, 264 AD2d 377; Wern v D’Alessandro, 219 AD2d 646, 647). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cu-sick, J.), entered August 11, 1999, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Ahmed “Sam” Elsayed on the ground that jurisdiction was not acquired over that defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff failed to comply with CPLR 308 (2), the purported service of the summons was ineffective to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant Ahmed “Sam” Elsayed (see, Macchia v Russo, 67 NY2d 592; Feinstein v Bergner, 48 NY2d 234; Citibank v Harris, 264 AD2d 377; Wern v D’Alessandro, 219 AD2d 646, 647). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 445, 717 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defilippo-v-plaza-sea-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack