Fabrizio, Radmin, Buskbaum & Co. v. Hendler & Murray, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fabrizio, Radmin, Buskbaum & Co. v. Hendler & Murray, P. C.

216 A.D.2d 520, 628 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7067

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 520 (Fabrizio, Radmin, Buskbaum & Co. v. Hendler & Murray, P. C.) 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

Fabrizio, Radmin, Buskbaum & Co. v. Hendler & Murray, P. C., 216 A.D.2d 520, 628 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated December 17,1993, as struck their affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff obtained personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants.

There are numerous issues of fact regarding service of process upon the defendants in this case. Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by failing to order a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff had obtained personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants (see, De Vore v Osborne, 78 AD2d 915). Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Florio, 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 breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated December 17,1993, as struck their affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff obtained personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants.

There are numerous issues of fact regarding service of process upon the defendants in this case. Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by failing to order a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff had obtained personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants (see, De Vore v Osborne, 78 AD2d 915). Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 520, 628 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabrizio-radmin-buskbaum-co-v-hendler-murray-p-c-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack