Flynn v. Orsini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flynn v. Orsini

286 A.D.2d 568, 730 N.Y.S.2d 465, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8222

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

DecidedAugust 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 568 (Flynn v. Orsini) 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

Flynn v. Orsini, 286 A.D.2d 568, 730 N.Y.S.2d 465, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of respondent Erie County Board of Elections (Board) seeking dismissal of this proceeding on the ground that petitioner failed to serve the order to show cause upon the Board in the manner specified therein and thus failed to obtain jurisdiction over it. Although the order to show cause required service on respondents “Laurence F. Adamczyk and Ralph Mohr, Commissioners,” “by leaving a copy” at the office of the Board, petitioner instead mailed the papers to the Board. “Having thus failed to effect service in accordance with the provisions of the order to show cause, petitioner failed to gain jurisdiction over [the Board]” (Matter of Washington v Mahoney, 71 AD2d 1047, 1048). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Board was a necessary party to the proceeding (see, CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Sahler v Callahan, 92 AD2d 976, 977). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — Election Law.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of respondent Erie County Board of Elections (Board) seeking dismissal of this proceeding on the ground that petitioner failed to serve the order to show cause upon the Board in the manner specified therein and thus failed to obtain jurisdiction over it. Although the order to show cause required service on respondents “Laurence F. Adamczyk and Ralph Mohr, Commissioners,” “by leaving a copy” at the office of the Board, petitioner instead mailed the papers to the Board. “Having thus failed to effect service in accordance with the provisions of the order to show cause, petitioner failed to gain jurisdiction over [the Board]” (Matter of Washington v Mahoney, 71 AD2d 1047, 1048). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Board was a necessary party to the proceeding (see, CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Sahler v Callahan, 92 AD2d 976, 977). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — Election Law.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 568, 730 N.Y.S.2d 465, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-orsini-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack